Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    absolutely incorrect. i know from personal experience fighting and training in MMA that a blood choke takes 15-20 seconds to render you unconscious, and a few seconds faster if your exhausted (like from fighting in a mma match).
    User name suits

    There are points in the neck that stage hypnotists use which are very effective.

    Read one of Melvin Powers books from the 1950/60s.
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

      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.
      A while back I asked if I might have missed some obvious interpretation other than the one you're putting forth here, and in some ways I'm glad to see that it's clear I hadn't, but in others, I'm sad that this is still coming up. It reminds me of the importance to distinguish between the unconvinced, and the unconvincable.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        THERE YOU GO HERLOCK, READ IT AGAIN . AND READ THE SOURCES USED TO GATHER THE INFORMATION . ILL SAY IT AGAIN JUST FOR YOU, LONG CODOSCH AND RICHARDSON ARE NOT 100% BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT PROOF THAT CHAPMAN WAS KILLED AT 5.30
        Killer striking between Cadosch’s visits
        If we consider that Cadosch did hear Chapman and the killer and that the sound of the fall was caused by the killer striking and Chapman falling against the fence or the killer knocking it as he lowered Chapman to the ground, it would be odd for the killer to have waited for over three or four minutes after Cadosch had gone back into the house to pick his moment, a period in which no-one was in the next yard, and then to strike after Cadosch had come back outside even if it was while he was in the privy. If the attack had begun just before Cadosch came back outside it would be odd for Cadosch to have heard nothing on his way to the privy the second time only to hear the ‘fall’ on returning to the house. ''As the killer would have been ‘working’ from the right side of Chapman’s body (i.e. the side away from the fence) he would not likely have made the sound accidentally as he ‘worked’''.

        The killer would hardly likely start the attack if he heard someone so close. Only once Cadosch had gone back into his house would the killer have struck.

        ''
        SO MUCH FOR THE KILLER BEING RESPONSIBLY FOR THE ''THUD'' THAT CODOSCH HEARD ,GUESS WE CAN PUT THAT MYTH TO BED . HEY HERLOCK
        You persist in making dishonest posts Fishy. How many times have I told you about this Straw Man argument and yet you still persist in using it. I’ll say it again for the 100th time......

        I HAVE NEVER, EVER, EVER, SAID THAT THE NOISE THAT CADOSCH HEARD AGAINST THE FENCE WAS ANNIE FALLING TO THE GROUND. AND SO YOUR CONSTANT ARGUING ABOUT THE GAP BETWEEN THE NO AND THE NOISE IS UTTERLY VACUOUS. ISAY THAT THE NO WAS ANNIE. SHE WAS THEN KILLED AND THE NOISE WAS PROBABLY MADE BY THE KILLER BRUSHING AGAINST THE FENCE. STOP MAKING THINGS UP FOR A CHANGE.....HAS THIS SUNK IN FISHY? DO YOU UNDERSTAND BE AUSE I DONT WANT TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT AGAIN!

        'As the killer would have been ‘working’ from the right side of Chapman’s body (i.e. the side away from the fence) he would not likely have made the sound accidentally as he ‘worked’''
        Give me strength! Were you there? How can you make such a dishonest statement? It’s pathetic.

        N . ILL SAY IT AGAIN JUST FOR YOU, LONG CODOSCH AND RICHARDSON ARE NOT 100% BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT PROOF THAT CHAPMAN WAS KILLED AT 5.30
        More lies. I’ve asked you this question before. Produce the post where I’ve said 100% certain. Go on. Stop lying. I said beyond reasonable doubt.

        Ill tell you one thing that we do know for absolute 100%. Phillips could not have accurately estimated the TOD. I’ll tell you something else that’s 100%. That you and The Baron have no business questioning the knowledge of the world’s Forensic experts. What are you’re qualifications that give you the right to claim that you know better than Jason Payne-James or Sir Keith Simpson or Francis Camps or any of the other authorities.

        You are an embarrassment to the subject.
        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

          User name suits

          There are points in the neck that stage hypnotists use which are very effective.

          Read one of Melvin Powers books from the 1950/60s.
          yes and Spock could do it instantaneously.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DJA View Post

            Nope.

            That is now on Pub Talk.
            Well, the spirits need a good ale now and then, right ?

            Comment


            • I HAVE NEVER, EVER, EVER, SAID THAT THE NOISE THAT CADOSCH HEARD AGAINST THE FENCE WAS ANNIE FALLING TO THE GROUND. AND SO YOUR CONSTANT ARGUING ABOUT THE GAP BETWEEN THE NO AND THE NOISE IS UTTERLY VACUOUS. ISAY THAT THE NO WAS ANNIE. SHE WAS THEN KILLED AND THE NOISE WAS PROBABLY MADE BY THE KILLER BRUSHING AGAINST THE FENCE. STOP MAKING THINGS UP FOR A CHANGE.....HAS THIS SUNK IN FISHY? DO YOU UNDERSTAND BE AUSE I DONT WANT TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT AGAIN!

              'As the killer would have been ‘working’ from the right side of Chapman’s body (i.e. the side away from the fence) he would not likely have made the sound accidentally as he ‘worked’''
              Give me strength! Were you there? How can you make such a dishonest statement? It’s pathetic.


              BUT YOU DO SAY THAT THE THUD WAS PROBABLY THE MURDERER HITTING THE FENCE , AND IVE SHOWED YOU THAT THIS IDEA IS MORE LIKELY WRONG . NOW PAY ATTENTION HERE , ITS NOT MY WORDS THERE FROM GAVIN BROMLEY HIS ARTICLE ''CODOSCH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE'' SO LETS NOT LISTEN TO HIM EITHER SHALL WE. LET ME KNOW WHAT HE SAYS WHEN YOU TELL HIM THE SAME THING ,ILL BE WAITING

              More lies. I’ve asked you this question before. Produce the post where I’ve said 100% certain. Go on. Stop lying. I said beyond reasonable doubt.

              Ill tell you one thing that we do know for absolute 100%. Phillips could not have accurately estimated the TOD. I’ll tell you something else that’s 100%. That you and The Baron have no business questioning the knowledge of the world’s Forensic experts. What are you’re qualifications that give you the right to claim that you know better than Jason Payne-James or Sir Keith Simpson or Francis Camps or any of the other authorities.

              You are an embarrassment to the subject.


              HERLOCK , IVE TAKEN NEARLY EVERYTHING IVE POSTED ON THE CHAPMAN MURDER FROM THE WOLF VANDERLINDEN ARTICLE, WHICH IF YOU BOTHER TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SOURCE OF HIS INFORMATION IT HAS JUST AS MANY EXPERTS AND MEDICAL AUTHORITY, FORENSIC OPINIONS BOOKS, ETC ETC THAN ALL THE ONES YOU LOVE TO QUOTE FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS

              SO IF YOU PERSIST ON ATTACKING MY HONESTY AND INTEGRITY AND CALLING ME A LIAR FOR POSTING MY OPINION, WHICH IS LARGELY BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES WORK AND RESPECTED RIPPEROLIGIST, I WILL REPORT YOU . SO JUST BEHAVE YOURSELF AND SHOW SOME GOD DAME RESTRAINT .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                Nichols had been in London Hospital with Eddowes from December 1867 under Sutton's care. Both had rheumatic fever.
                Nichols moving next door to Eddowes just before hopping supports that,as does Kate's return for reward.
                THEY OBVIOUSLY KNEW EACH OTHER.

                Chapman had TB which had spread to her brain.
                Guess who was a chest expert!
                Who else would know,let alone make an attempt at removing her head.
                She was seeking money and seemed confident of acquiring some.

                Hip Lip Liz obviously had HHT.
                Guess who was one of the leaders in that field!

                Eddowes half kidney finished up with him because of his expertise.

                Mary ANN Kelly,29,had been a young member of his church when he joined the Vestry Board circa 1867.

                That's just for starters.

                Have you any evidence that any of the victims had ever met your suspect? Whitechapel was a hugely overcrowded area, and some of the tenements could contain hundreds of individuals. Therefore living "next door" to someone didn't mean that you knew them.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John G View Post

                  Whitechapel was a hugely overcrowded area, and some of the tenements could contain hundreds of individuals. Therefore living "next door" to someone didn't mean that you knew them.
                  Really.

                  Substantiate that with the occupancy any of the tenements occupied by the Five from August 1888 on, and I'll supply you with further evidence.

                  1881 or 1891 Census will suffice.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    Really.

                    Substantiate that with the occupancy any of the tenements occupied by the Five from August 1888 on, and I'll supply you with further evidence.

                    1881 or 1891 Census will suffice.
                    I havent got time for all of that. Anyway, you're the one making the assertion that they knew each other, so the onus is on you to supply the evidence. Could you also provide me with authority on the reliability of census records of this period.
                    Last edited by John G; 09-23-2019, 07:38 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Actually,I replied to your comment that the women were ill and vulnerable.

                      They were.

                      And Henry Gawen Sutton had been assisting some of them for decades.

                      In fact Eddowes was his star patient,as far as I'm concerned. Heart and kidneys!

                      Do your own research.

                      Spent over 11 years doing mine.

                      Crikey I had a girlfriend like you that asked questions to waste my time and start arguments.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                        BUT YOU DO SAY THAT THE THUD WAS PROBABLY THE MURDERER HITTING THE FENCE , AND IVE SHOWED YOU THAT THIS IDEA IS MORE LIKELY WRONG . NOW PAY ATTENTION HERE , ITS NOT MY WORDS THERE FROM GAVIN BROMLEY HIS ARTICLE ''CODOSCH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE'' SO LETS NOT LISTEN TO HIM EITHER SHALL WE. LET ME KNOW WHAT HE SAYS WHEN YOU TELL HIM THE SAME THING ,ILL BE WAITING

                        Ill let you what’s very obvious Fishy. You’ve done what you seem to do regularly. You’ve read something that you like (whether it’s Bromley or Vanderlinden) and decided that this is fact. This is just a piece of writing by a Ripperologists. I’m not condemning it by sayin that but it’s simply an opinion. He appears to not have taken two other possibilities into consideration. 1) That the noise against the fence might have been made by the murderer himself rather than Annie’s body, and 2) That Cadosch might have got his time wrong and that he may have gone into the yard later.

                        [/B]

                        HERLOCK , IVE TAKEN NEARLY EVERYTHING IVE POSTED ON THE CHAPMAN MURDER FROM THE WOLF VANDERLINDEN ARTICLE, WHICH IF YOU BOTHER TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SOURCE OF HIS INFORMATION IT HAS JUST AS MANY EXPERTS AND MEDICAL AUTHORITY, FORENSIC OPINIONS BOOKS, ETC ETC THAN ALL THE ONES YOU LOVE TO QUOTE FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS

                        This is a gross exaggeration of course. In actual fact the article mentions only two Forensic experts who add one sentence each purely on digestion. Giving average times of 1-1.5 hrs and 2-3 hrs respectively. This adds little to the debate because they don’t appear to have taken into consideration of any of Annie’s specific physical conditions. He also doesn’t consider the obvious possibility that Annie might have eaten again. Let’s face it, eating isn’t always a public event, and someone at Annie’s level of poverty would hardy have. turned down food had it been offered. Then of course we can add Payne-James and others who tell us that digestion is unreliable.

                        And so this hardly compares with a situation where all experts in a particular field tell us the same thing ie. that Phillips could not have accurately estimated Annie’s TOD. This isn’t opinion. This isn’t just one viewpoint. This is a fact. A fact that you choose to disregard because it’s inconvenient to your theory.


                        SO IF YOU PERSIST ON ATTACKING MY HONESTY AND INTEGRITY AND CALLING ME A LIAR FOR POSTING MY OPINION, WHICH IS LARGELY BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES WORK AND RESPECTED RIPPEROLIGIST, I WILL REPORT YOU . SO JUST BEHAVE YOURSELF AND SHOW SOME GOD DAME RESTRAINT .

                        Respect is earned. You have not earned it. I do not enjoy questioning someone’s integrity but it’s impossible not to when faced with your claims.
                        • No matter how many times I have told you, you persist in posting that I believe that the noise was Annie falling against the fence. This is untrue. I’ve no doubt at all that some time in the future you will post this lie again.
                        • No matter how many times I’ve asked you about Phillips saying that Chapman was definitely killed where she was found out completely ignore it or change the subject because you know that it’s inconvenient to your theory.
                        • You persist in claiming (along with The Baron) that you know better than the entire Forensic Science establishment on TOD estimations. You even make the entirely laughable suggestion that this is proved because other TOD’s appear to have been correct. Do you honestly think that if you made this point to an authority he would say “ oh wow. We never considered that. Thank you Fishy we will change all of our textbooks.” Yet you persist with this obvious nonsense.
                        • You've made the logic-defying claim that if a person states two things, let’s call them A and B, but he admits to being uncertain about A then we should dismiss B!!! You can you stand by this piece of drivel.
                        • In a previous post you claimed that there was a gap of a metre between Annie and the fence. A preposterous and demonstrably impossible claim.
                        • You claim that the killer would have been on Annie’s right without any basis for this except that you think that it might disprove a suggestion of mine.
                        • You have mocked something that every single person interested in the case and the era couldn’t fail to know. That timings have to be given an element of leeway due to that fact that the vast majority didn’t own watches or clocks. You dispute and mock this very obvious fact.
                        • You have repeatedly claimed that I’ve said that the 5.30 TOD is 100%. Ive never said that, I’ve said - beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore you told a falsehood. What else can I call it?
                        • You ask me to show some restraint. Rich coming from the man that called me a moron!

                        I could certainly go on but I’ll leave it at that. All of my points can be checked by anyone. You persist in posting demonstrable falsehoods purely and simply because you have a theory and you seek to shape everything to fit that theory. How else can I describe someone that does this? Differences of opinion are fine and debate is the purpose of these threads but the 9 points that I’ve made are not opinions. They are facts. If you stop making false claims about what I’ve said or what I believe; if you stop claiming to know more that Forensic experts; if you stop pulling and stretching logic way past breaking point and if you ever decide to view the case without the wearing the Stephen Knight Goggles then you might get a little respect.
                        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-23-2019, 10:50 AM.
                        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
                          Actually,I replied to your comment that the women were ill and vulnerable.

                          They were.

                          And Henry Gawen Sutton had been assisting some of them for decades.

                          In fact Eddowes was his star patient,as far as I'm concerned. Heart and kidneys!

                          Do your own research.

                          Spent over 11 years doing mine.

                          Crikey I had a girlfriend like you that asked questions to waste my time and start arguments.
                          I'm wasting your time? Are you winding me up? It's not for me to act as your researcher! You're the one who introduced the suspect, and then offered only flimsy evidence to support your argument. And the fact that he may have treated Eddowes hardly makes him a serial killer. Unbelievable nonsense!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John G View Post

                            I'm wasting your time? Are you winding me up? It's not for me to act as your researcher! You're the one who introduced the suspect, and then offered only flimsy evidence to support your argument. And the fact that he may have treated Eddowes hardly makes him a serial killer. Unbelievable nonsense!
                            Theres a lot of it going on John.

                            Id like to ask Dave if he’s published the results of his research? Is there a dissertation for example on Sutton as a suspect) Or is there anywhere that we can view the case against him as a whole? This might very well exist but can a link be provided to it as I’m unaware of its location? It’s impossible to evaluate a suspect from fragments. So far we appear to have the suggestion that Sutton treated Eddowes (this may well have been true) and the suggestion that a blackmail plan can be deduced from “”””will you”””” and ““””yes.”””” I’m not suggesting that Dave has built a case solely around these two things but the case for Sutton would have to be viewed as a whole for anyone to form an opinion. Is this too much to ask?
                            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

                              Theres a lot of it going on John.

                              Id like to ask Dave if he’s published the results of his research? Is there a dissertation for example on Sutton as a suspect) Or is there anywhere that we can view the case against him as a whole? This might very well exist but can a link be provided to it as I’m unaware of its location? It’s impossible to evaluate a suspect from fragments. So far we appear to have the suggestion that Sutton treated Eddowes (this may well have been true) and the suggestion that a blackmail plan can be deduced from “”””will you”””” and ““””yes.”””” I’m not suggesting that Dave has built a case solely around these two things but the case for Sutton would have to be viewed as a whole for anyone to form an opinion. Is this too much to ask?
                              yes HS
                              I wondering about this too.

                              DJA
                              Do you have an article or anything you've written up on your suspect? would love to see your theory/evidence all written up in one place. seriously.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Theres a lot of it going on John.

                                Id like to ask Dave if he’s published the results of his research? Is there a dissertation for example on Sutton as a suspect) Or is there anywhere that we can view the case against him as a whole? This might very well exist but can a link be provided to it as I’m unaware of its location? It’s impossible to evaluate a suspect from fragments. So far we appear to have the suggestion that Sutton treated Eddowes (this may well have been true) and the suggestion that a blackmail plan can be deduced from “”””will you”””” and ““””yes.”””” I’m not suggesting that Dave has built a case solely around these two things but the case for Sutton would have to be viewed as a whole for anyone to form an opinion. Is this too much to ask?
                                I agree with the points you've made, Herlock. A suspect has been introduced, who we can't really evaluate. For instance, arguing that a victim once lived next door to another victim isn't decisive, particularly as some of the Whitechapel tenements were hugely overcrowded, with up to 80 people in a single room.

                                And this doctor, from the limited information offered, seems to have been a bit of a Jack of all trades, so arguing on that basis that he must have treated all of the victims, simply because they all had health conditions, isn't very convincing. I mean, by the same logic you could argue that he probably treated virtually the entire population of Whitechapel, just on the basis that most people, in this over crowded area, seemed to be suffering from at least one ailment!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X