Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • 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.

    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?

      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.

        Comment


        • Name them.

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


            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
            Unintelligible drivel. Again. Please stop posting Baron.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
              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.

              Not answered properly. There are no qualifications for looking for signs of blood. What a ludicrous suggestion. Policemen didnít have qualifications. They had eyes...like Phillips.

              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

              And at least 6 times, after me explaining it to you, youíve continued to post the same falsehood. Is this honest posting?
              You havenít given a single plausible explanation. Youíve even claimed to know where the killer knelt. Something that no one can know. You just keep making things up Fishy.

              Please try not to.

              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 .

                my apologies this was a response i was referring to from another post

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  Answer the 3 question first
                  I havenít a clue what these three questions mean. Re-phrase them. Youíre posting in riddles. Iíve never dodged a question unlike you.

                  Comment


                  • Iím about to go out so Iíll begin to respond to your nonsense at around 3.30. It will give you a chance to get your thoughts together. Hopefully.

                    Comment


                    • Not answered properly. There are no qualifications for looking for signs of blood. What a


                      ludicrous suggestion. Policemen didnít have qualifications. They had eyes...like Phillips.

                      thanks you just prove my point . like i said answered .

                      Comment


                      • omg..... just read post 1746 its not rocket science for Christ sake

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                          thanks you just prove my point . like i said answered .
                          On what planet?!

                          Estimating TOD is a matter of science requiring knowledge and training. Itís not something that anyone can attempt to do.

                          Checking for evidence that a person was killed anywhere is simply a matter of checking for signs. Mainly blood. This requires eyesight. Itís of no great difficulty.

                          And so....

                          Why do you believe that Phillips was correct on something so difficult; something with so many variants (some of which Phillips wouldnít have been aware of in 1888) and yet you think him incompetent to look for blood?

                          Itís like saying that a person is capable of juggling six balls but is incapable of juggling two!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


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

                            Has it been proven that she was strangled? Iím not saying that she wasnít of course but I wasnít aware that this was a proven fact.

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

                            If the ďnoĒ came from Annie then Iíd tend toward the fact that she said it before she died, yes.

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

                            Errata is suggesting that the killer knelt above Annieís head to do the mutilations. Unlike you Errata isnít claiming to be psychic. He/she is suggesting a possibility.

                            Just want to make sure we agree on this .

                            my apologies this was a response i was referring to from another post
                            The only reason that ive responded to this is because you asked me to respond the three questions and Iím assuming that these are the three questions that you were talking about?

                            I donít see what point you are trying to make? The fact is that none of us know what position the killer was in when he committed the mutilations and itís entirely plausible that he changed position during the mutilations to get better access. Thereís nothing controversial about this suggestion as far as Iím aware. The only issue here is that youíve stated something as a fact when itís only your opinion.

                            Comment


                            • We know that blood splatters were on that fence, about 12-18 inches from the bottom of the fence if I recall, That proximity to the fence, and the fact that it was thought to be arterial spray, meant her position in relation to the fence might have easily been the cause of the thud as he lowered her onto her back. I think this killer first choked his victim to unconsciousness, like he did with Polly.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                We know that blood splatters were on that fence, about 12-18 inches from the bottom of the fence if I recall, That proximity to the fence, and the fact that it was thought to be arterial spray, meant her position in relation to the fence might have easily been the cause of the thud as he lowered her onto her back. I think this killer first choked his victim to unconsciousness, like he did with Polly.
                                On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X