Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Given that is his sworn inquest statement, that is all the proof I need to put the onus on you to show evidence that his statement was incorrect. In short, the evidence we have indicates he was at work, to discard that requires you demonstrate that part of his statement specifically is untrue or erroneous. Otherwise, suggesting that it might be untrue is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and so holds no value in terms of proof that my evidence based claim is incorrect.

    - Jeff

    So you couldn't. Was expected.

    Who is the one saying Chapman was killed 5:20 am beyond all reasonable doubt ?!


    He has to prove that. wheather you like this or not.

    You know what, it helps when you read all the posts, it may give you a better understanding of the situation in hand.




    The Baron

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



      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"



      First Lesson:


      Don't let others do your homeworks



      The Baron
      Jennifer Bucholtz's observation is valid, but most people already know that the phases of rigor are helpful in determining the manner and timing of death. You don't have to have watched too many TV cop shows before you pick up that fact, let alone read too many true crime books, so you're surely not so naive as to imagine that this really does constitute a 'reality shock'? What's your point?

      Maybe instead of handing out lessons, you should ask yourself whether you're interested in establishing the facts or scoring points.



      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        Youve twisted this tread topic so badly a real shame
        All of the issues on this thread have come directly from you and The Baron. Itís impossible to have a reasoned debate with people who actually believe that they are authorities on Forensic medicine. You, for example, have said that I believe that the noise was caused by Annieís body falling against the fence around 6 times. Iíve corrected you on this every single time and yet you still post it. Is that honest posting Fishy? Iíve asked you a question about Phillips saying that Annie was killed where she was found but you refuse to answer.

        There would few issues on this thread if you didnít go to any extreme length to support your obsession that Annie was killed elsewhere. This colours and distorts every opinion that you have unfortunately. If you debated logically and with reason there would be no issues. You and The Baron (now ably assisted by Dave) are 100% the issues. My fault is that I tend to react in frustration at debating with a brick wall.
        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
          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.
          Here you go again!

          How can you possibly state this opinion as a fact!!

          I draw any reasonable posters attention to this. This is the kind of drivel that we have to put up with.

          Were you there Fishy?

          You cannot know this. Itís impossible. You are simply making this up to support your non-existent argument.
          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


            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

            More nonsense.

            I challenge you to prove that Amelia Richardson didnít kill Annie Chapman assisted by Fred Abberline both dressed in rabbit costumes!

            The ď prove itís impossibleĒ argument is as weak as it gets.

            Par for the course for you.
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • Phillips was a medical man, he was quite right to give his expert medical opinion on her t.o.d, i questioned his judgement when saying that Chapman was killed where she was found on the bases he was not qualified to make such a call. Answered.

              As for whether it was Annie or the killer that made the noise that hit the fence , you believe it was one or the other, and ive given a very plausible explanation that it might not have been either ,but you ignore it just like everything else. so be it , let the frustration continue

              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


                I challenge any human being to make sense of this.

                Point one......you are saying that Phillips was correct.....understand?

                Point two.....if Phillips was correct then there was a horribly mutilated corpse in the yard at 4.30 or before......understand?

                Point three......Cadosch heard the sounds after 5 am......understand?

                Point four......According to you (and Phillips) there was a horribly mutilated corpse in the yard when Cadosch was in his yard...understand?

                and Point Five.....So any noise made in that yard was made by strangers, as you suggest, they would have been made by strangers that were completely unconcerned that there was a horribly mutilated corpse there....understand?

                Give up Baron. You are embarrassing yourself.

                Add this one to you falling for the joke that Richardson had long hair and one eye



                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 Errata View Post

                  Just two? I must be improving.
                  Wait until you hear the two problems Errata. Theyíre bound to be nonsense. No one can possibly know for sure where the killer knelt unless Fishy is claiming to be psychic. Your suggestion is as likely as any.
                  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


                    Nope that doesn't work, two problems with that scenario
                    Name them.

                    I could do with a laugh.
                    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



                      Always my pleasure Fishy!

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



                      The Baron
                      High quality post Baron.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment



                      • I donít 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. Itís tight, but youíre not reaching over things.


                        This would be after he rendered her unconscious due to strangling her , is that correct ?

                        Right after she said ''no'' is this also correct ?

                        And they were between the steps and the fence and there was no sign of a struggle ? correct?

                        Just want to make sure we agree on this .

                        your invite to answer these questions herlock yes /or no will do

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                          Show me your source that proves beyond reasonable doubt where Richardson was at 5:20 am.


                          The Baron
                          He was at work at the market. Believe it or not there are no market attendance record. But we know that he was there because thatís where Mr Pearlman told him that a woman had been found dead. And so if the police suspected Richardson it would have been very easy for them to have gone to the market and found someone who would have vouched for him.
                          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

                            This would be after he rendered her unconscious due to strangling her , is that correct ?

                            Right after she said ''no'' is this also correct ?

                            And they were between the steps and the fence and there was no sign of a struggle ? correct?

                            Just want to make sure we agree on this .
                            Try posting clearly Fishy. What point are you trying to make?
                            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 JeffHamm View Post

                              Given that is his sworn inquest statement, that is all the proof I need to put the onus on you to show evidence that his statement was incorrect. In short, the evidence we have indicates he was at work, to discard that requires you demonstrate that part of his statement specifically is untrue or erroneous. Otherwise, suggesting that it might be untrue is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and so holds no value in terms of proof that my evidence based claim is incorrect.

                              - Jeff
                              Itís a brick wall of poor logic Jeff.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Name them.

                                I could do with a laugh.
                                Answer the 3 question first

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X