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 Michael W Richards View Post

    Actually Id prefer not be lumped in with Ripperologists if this is the extent of the knowledge being imparted by them. And I think to be fair, true Ripperologists don't include the fringe elements just intent on disruption and fanciful theorizing, they can be identified easily enough if anyone reads their posts.
    Come back and read your recent posts when you sober up.
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DJA View Post

      Come back and read your recent posts when you sober up.
      I just responded to this kind of nonsense from you on another thread, perhaps you should try and broaden your repertoire. And for sure, your reasoning.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DJA View Post

        Obviously.

        Even worse on the other thread.
        Yes, you are the one I keep having to council on credibility, believability, nonsense and long discarded and completely unfounded theories. It creeps into many threads due to your participation.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          It says Annie after I corrected it, sometimes get confused as to which nonsense Im responding to at the moment. There seems to be abundant amounts in both general Stride threads and Chapman posts concerning the TOD. Actually there seems to be a nonsense trend on most threads here lately, Im sure an anarchist like you is pleased that nonsense has made mainstream discussions.
          I think you quoted the wrong post. Was it not post #1688 by The Baron that you meant to quote, rather than #1689 by etenguy.
          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 them into meaning when we will not.
          We will not.

          Comment


          • Ozzy,he doesn't know. Obviously.
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • Try answering Paul’s very reasonable question instead of your usual waffle.
              Try staying out of pauls and mine conversation and dont be rude

              Comment


              • What I’m saying, if you’d bothered reading and understanding, is that you cannot say that she must have been on Annie’s right. You weren’t there. I wasn’t there. We have absolutely no way of knowing where the killer positioned himself or whether he changed positions whilst he was mutilating her.

                Has that sunk in Fishy? We cannot know. And so.....

                why are you assuming that you do know?
                Thats better , ... i understand very well thank you, but its your comprehension thats letting you down im afraid.... just like theres no way of knowing there was anyone in the yard of number 29 at 5.20am ? Remember herlock, codosch only thought the ''no'' came from 29 but he could say for certain which side it came from ... DOUBT.

                Has that also sunk in herlock.

                Comment


                • I debate every single point that you make. You use tactics like the above just to avoid answering.

                  You actually know that you are wrong Fishy and all reasonable posters can see this.
                  No , its just like i said ive spent to much time debating chapman with you. And have shown over and over and over again why long, codosch and Richardson are unreliable and contradict each other, and in no way make it certain that she was killed at 5.30am like you famously claim .

                  Thanks to wolf vanderlinden for his excellent work in establishing just that .

                  All other reasonable posters can see this too.

                  Comment


                  • I’ve answered this repeatedly and you’ve repeatedly and dishonestly posted otherwise.
                    Careful herlock about calling me dishonest, remember what you were told about that .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      Thats better , ... i understand very well thank you, but its your comprehension thats letting you down im afraid.... just like theres no way of knowing there was anyone in the yard of number 29 at 5.20am ? Remember herlock, codosch only thought the ''no'' came from 29 but he could say for certain which side it came from ... DOUBT.

                      Has that also sunk in herlock.
                      There is nothing wrong with my comprehension Fishy. You are being selective again. Can you not see this.

                      Yes, Cadosch admitted to uncertainty about the ‘no.’ He was being honest. Why is this held against him in your eyes?

                      But he had no such uncertainty about the noise. You cannot dismiss one because of the other. If someone is uncertain about point A but certain about point B point B cannot simply be dismissed. It makes no logical sense. Cadosch is a creditable witness. There is no evidence that he got anything wrong. There is no evidence that he lied. Your logic is deeply flawed.

                      Two questions.

                      1. Cadosch hears the word no. He thinks it came from 29 but he cannot be certain. How likely is it that he could mistake a noise that came from 6 feet away for one that came from yards away? If it came from further away then it must have been louder. No one else heard someone shout no. The police would have questioned neighbours and yet no one appears to have been in the other yards. The only place where anything of significance occurred was in the yard of number 29. How likely is it that the ‘no’ came from a distance away?

                      2. He was certain that the noise came from number 29. A matter of 6 feet or so away from him. In a yard where a woman is murdered. What else could the noise have realistically been? A while ago you suggested packing cases but I pointed out that there were no packing cases in the yard at the time. So what else, realistically, could have made the noise.
                      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 FISHY1118 View Post

                        No , its just like i said ive spent to much time debating chapman with you. And have shown over and over and over again why long, codosch and Richardson are unreliable and contradict each other, and in no way make it certain that she was killed at 5.30am like you famously claim .

                        Thanks to wolf vanderlinden for his excellent work in establishing just that .

                        All other reasonable posters can see this too.
                        You’ve debated nothing. You have made a single sensible post. You’ve dodged and avoided every single question. Then to top it all off you laughably claim to know more about Forensic Science than the world’s experts.

                        Talking of reasonable posters.....this is why the poll overwhelmingly went for the witnesses over Phillips.

                        Phillips is now irrelevant except to those desperate to bolster a theory. Game long over.
                        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 FISHY1118 View Post

                          Careful herlock about calling me dishonest, remember what you were told about that .
                          Maybe you should be careful in case I got back and report you for calling me a moron.

                          If I say that someone isn’t telling the truth I can back it up with black and white evidence.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • So take this reality shock, it will be hard:


                            "The phases of rigor mortis can be extremely helpful in piecing together the circumstances and timing of a death. Rigor is one of the many potential clues examined by crime scene technicians, forensic pathologists, and detectives during an investigation to determine the proper manner of death (i.e., homicide, suicide, accident, or natural causes). It may also verify or refute a witness or suspect statement and can sometimes indicate whether a body has been moved after death. It is a valuable indicator that cannot be overlooked.

                            About the Author: Jennifer Bucholtz is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Agent and a decorated veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. She holds a Bachelor of Science in criminal justice, Master of Arts in criminal justice and Master of Science in forensic sciences. Bucholtz has an extensive background in U.S. military and Department of Defense counterintelligence operations. While on active duty, she served as the Special Agent in Charge for her unit in South Korea and Assistant Special Agent in Charge at stateside duty stations. Bucholtz has also worked for the Arizona Department of Corrections and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in New York City. She is currently an adjunct faculty member at American Military University and teaches courses in criminal justice and forensic sciences. Additionally, she is a licensed private investigator in Colorado"

                            WELL WELL WELL ,LOOKY WHAT WE HAVE HERE , DONT YOU EVER SAY THAT DR PHILLIPS WAS WRONG IN HIS T.OD, OR THAT HE WAS GUESSING AND THAT HE WAS INACCURATE TO PROVE THAT LONG CODOSCH AND RICHARDSON WERE RIGHT HERLOCK . GREAT FIND BARON.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                              Brilliant post dave
                              I can add hypocrite to the list.

                              You chastise me for using the word dishonest and yet praise a post that has three personal insults against me.

                              Keep digging Fishy.
                              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