Chapman’s death.

[FISHY1118]

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.

As ive explain to you the murderer making the noise against the fence is almost impossible. But as always ignore ignore ignore.


THE REST OF YOUR POST IS JUST REPEATED GIBBERISH IM AFRAID, NOT WORTH MY TIME TO EXPLAIN TO YOU AGAIN . ITS JUST AS LIKELY CHAPMAN WAS KILLED AT THE EARLIER TIME OF 3.30 / 4.00 BASED ON DR PHILLIPS T.O.D, AND THE AS ALWAYS UNRELIABLE AND VERY CONTRADICTORY WITNESS TESTIMONIES OF LONG, CODOCSH AND RICHARDSON.

MANY THANKS FOR WOLF VANDERLINDIN FOR MAKING THAT PLAINLY OBVIOUS.

[PaulB]

As ive explain to you the murderer making the noise against the fence is almost impossible. But as always ignore ignore ignore.

Why is it 'almost impossible' that the murderer bumped against the fence?

Are you aware that message board etiquette is that capitals and/or emboldened type is the equivalent of shouting? If you are, why are you always shouting?

[FISHY1118]

i like the bold type , and no not shouting . as far as the ''no'' and the noise codosch heard, i guess it depends on whether you believe that at that precise moment of the ''no'' is when Annie met her demise. so do you ?

[Harry D]

He thinks writing in bold caps will emphasise his point... when it just makes him look challenged.

[FISHY1118]

I like the bold type, i think someones challenged at reading ,sorry that your comprehension is a bit off today Harry .

[PaulB]

i like the bold type , and no not shouting . as far as the ''no'' and the noise codosch heard, i guess it depends on whether you believe that at that precise moment of the ''no'' is when Annie met her demise. so do you ?

Whether you like bold type or not, it is generally considered to be shouting and therefore rude and unacceptable.

I don't know when Annie Chapman was murdered. When she was murdered and if the bump against the fence was connected to her murder is what some people are trying to establish. But what I asked is why it is 'almost impossible' for the murderer to have bumped against the fence.

[FISHY1118]

Whether you like bold type or not, it is generally considered to be shouting and therefore rude and unacceptable.

Probably the most ridiculous thing ive heard on this thread, ''rude and unacceptable''.... way too precious . Just read the content and not the way its typed for god sake.

[FISHY1118]

I

don't know when Annie Chapman was murdered. When she was murdered and if the bump against the fence was connected to her murder is what some people are trying to establish. But what I asked is why it is 'almost impossible' for the murderer to have bumped against the fence.

Well when you do know something about Annie Chapman ill be sure and let you know why .

[The Baron]

I don't know when Annie Chapman was murdered.

Good.

Do you agree or not with Herlock's :

5.25-5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt


?!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

As ive explain to you the murderer making the noise against the fence is almost impossible. But as always ignore ignore ignore.


THE REST OF YOUR POST IS JUST REPEATED GIBBERISH IM AFRAID, NOT WORTH MY TIME TO EXPLAIN TO YOU AGAIN . ITS JUST AS LIKELY CHAPMAN WAS KILLED AT THE EARLIER TIME OF 3.30 / 4.00 BASED ON DR PHILLIPS T.O.D, AND THE AS ALWAYS UNRELIABLE AND VERY CONTRADICTORY WITNESS TESTIMONIES OF LONG, CODOCSH AND RICHARDSON.

MANY THANKS FOR WOLF VANDERLINDIN FOR MAKING THAT PLAINLY OBVIOUS.

Just saying that you’ve explained something doesn’t mean that your explanation was a good one. Which it wasn’t. Your childish explanations can be dismissed. You’ve said:

- There was a one metre gap between Annie’s body and the fence.

This is wildly untrue as the merest glimpse of any of the photographs shows.

- The killer would have been on Annie’s right and so couldn’t have brushed against the fence.

This is pure speculation. Worse than that though, you’re using a falsehood to bolster a theory (and not for the first time either)

- Phillips TOD estimation can be assumed to be correct.

This is a lie. I refuse to dress it up in any other terms. I, and others, have produced mountains of cast-iron, rock solid, unarguable evidence from the authorities on the subject that this isn’t the case. I’ll ask you again Fishy......what gives you the right to contradict the genuine experts on this subject when you have no medical qualifications or knowledge. And pleeeeese do not use your pathetic - well doctors got it right three times argument - which is invalid, childish nonsense. If it was a valid argument Doctors would have changed their textbooks.... but they haven’t! Your opinion on this matter doesn’t count. Neither does mine. But I’m afraid that cannot be said of Jason Payne-James or Sir Keith Simpson. Answer the question.....what makes you an authority on Forensic medicine? (This goes for Professor Baron too by the way?)

- Because Cadosch was cautious about hearing the no we should dismiss him as unreliable.

Has anyone ever heard such anti-logical drivel? It beggars belief that an adult can say something like this.


Im not going to bother with the rest of your unintelligible waffle. Phillips can and should be dismissed. Only the foolish or biased desperately rely on him. Witness outweigh him as anyone of judgment would agree.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that Annie was killed at around 5.25-5.30. The evidence for this is overwhelming. The evidence for 4.30 is non-existent.

[FISHY1118]

-

The killer would have been on Annie’s right and so couldn’t have brushed against the fence.

This is pure speculation. Worse than that though, you’re using a falsehood to bolster a theory (and not for the first time either)

So the killer wasn't on Annies right ?


The rest of your post was just more gibberish, already explained to you ,so ill just pick and choose to avoid wasting my time

[etenguy]

Good.

Do you agree or not with Herlock's :

5.25-5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt

The Baron

If you are taking a poll, I think in all likelihood Annie Chapman was murdered at about 5.30. The combined witness statements are more compelling to me than a doctor using a known unreliable method of guesstimating the TOD. I stop short of asserting that is proven beyond all reasonable doubt but not a long way short.

[PaulB]

Probably the most ridiculous thing ive heard on this thread, ''rude and unacceptable''.... way too precious . Just read the content and not the way its typed for god sake.

I am stating long-established netiquette, but if you think good manners is 'ridiculous' and 'precious' then maybe that reveals something about you. It's no matter to me. And I do read the content, unedifying as it is from time to time.

[FISHY1118]

I am stating long-established netiquette, but if you think good manners is 'ridiculous' and 'precious' then maybe that reveals something about you. It's no matter to me. And I do read the content, unedifying as it is from time to time.

if its no matter to you , why then are you making such a big thing about it ? typing in bold is not rude, there just bold letters, how on earth you can tell it reveals anything at all about me is staggering

[PaulB]

I

Well when you do know something about Annie Chapman ill be sure and let you know why .

Actually, I do know something about Annie Chapman. However, all I asked was why it was 'almost impossible' for the murderer to have caused the bump against the fence, and you've done nothing but avoid answering it. Why? It wasn't a difficult question, it isn't unusual when someone says something for another person to politely ask for clarification. Why are you avoiding answering my question?