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 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

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    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

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      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.
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        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

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


            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.


            Its embarrassing. Read the quote Fishy. John G has already explained why it means nothing. It says nothing about accuracy. Check out a meaningful post. #1692.

            Phillips is irrelevant and no amount of childish blather from you and Baron will change things. TOD 5.25-5.30. Beyond All Reasonable Doubt.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • Youve twisted this tread topic so badly a real shame
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • The killer was indeed on the right side of Chapman when he cut her throat, not her left where he could have kicked the fence so codosch could hear him.
                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  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.

                  Maybe that was Richardson stealing the rings out of Chapman's fingers.


                  I challenge you to prove this couldn't be the case!



                  The Baron

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                    The killer was indeed on the right side of Chapman when he cut her throat, not her left where he could have kicked the fence so codosch could hear him.
                    I don’t think he was. It would be hard to cut with steps in the way. I think he stood Above her head. I think he lowered her down by the shoulders, and stood at the top of her head. It’s tight, but you’re not reaching over things.
                    The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                      Brilliant post dave

                      Dagon1 - Dagon - Wikipedia
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • [Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.


                        Funny enough, Herlock and Co. want us to forget about all those plenty strangers - at all hours - both men and women, and accept only their opinion that it MUST have been Chapman and the ripper!


                        I Challenge you again to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that those sounds couldn't have come from any other stranger!



                        The Baron



                        Last edited by The Baron; 09-25-2019, 02:34 AM.

                        Comment


                        • I don’t think he was. It would be hard to cut with steps in the way. I think he stood Above her head. I think he lowered her down by the shoulders, and stood at the top of her head. It’s tight, but you’re not reaching over things.

                          Nope that doesn't work, two problems with that scenario
                          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                            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.


                            Always my pleasure Fishy!

                            Oh, and I didn't tell you?! I llllllove it when you write in bold, it looks fantastic!!!



                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                              Nope that doesn't work, two problems with that scenario
                              Just two? I must be improving.
                              The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                                [Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.


                                Funny enough, Herlock and Co. want us to forget about all those plenty strangers - at all hours - both men and women, and accept only their opinion that it MUST have been Chapman and the ripper!


                                I Challenge you again to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that those sounds couldn't have come from any other stranger!



                                The Baron


                                Basically you're suggesting that these strangers just chatted away while Cadosh is in the yard next door on his first trip to the loo, and the strangers perhaps bump the fence on his second, 3-4 minutes later. And during this entire time, they never think to mention to the fellow in the yard next door, or react in any predictable human way (including leaving immediately, they hang out for 3-4 minutes at least), to the mutilated corpse beside them? Or somehow, in the light of dawn, and being in the yard for at least 3-4 minutes, they somehow fail to notice her? If you allow for any of those as failing to meet the definition of proof it wasn't random unknown strangers unconnected to the murder, then I fail to comprehend how you can dismiss any of the eyewitness testimony, though I grant, it makes acceptance of Dr. Phillips' guess consistent.

                                As for the bump being Richardson stealing Annie's rings, that would defy the laws of physics. Richardson had left the location at 4:50 and was at work at the time Cadosch reports hearing the sound from the yard of #29. As Richardson is known to be in another location at that time he cannot be the source of the sound against the fence, for any reason, including the specific example of taking Annie's rings.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X