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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It’s no use because you have Richardson sitting with the door in a certain position. What about when he first opened the door? The natural inclination would be to open the door wider and to hold it open as he descended the steps. Then he sits down inches from the body.

    And yet again, Richardson was absolutely adamant that he couldn’t have missed a mutilated corpse. Why does this count for nothing against a diagram? He was there. Eyes and a half a brain beat a diagram any day of the week I’m afraid.
    The natural inclination with a door that shuts itself would be to turn his bum towards the fence and the oncoming door, I´d say, not least if his focus was to the right, AWAY from Chapman. Regardless, it applies that we DON`T KNOW these matters, ergo there IS reason to accept that he may not have seen Chapman. End of.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 08-14-2019, 06:16 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Fish, your sketch is in the Lechmere Was Jack The Ripper thread at post #244 and others.

      You even drew one with me on the step.

      Aah, memories.
      Thankyou, Herlock!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


        " 8:30 AM: Caroline Maxwell, a witness at the inquest and acquaintance of Kelly's, claims to have seen the deceased at around 8:30 AM, several hours after the time given by Phillips as time of death. She described her clothing and appearance in depth, and adamantly stated that she was not mistaken about the date"

        According to your methodology, we MUST accept Maxwell's testimony any day of the week and reject the time of death given by Phillips, she was there, she has two eyes and a brain too!



        The Baron
        This is a first. You’ve actually tried to use evidence to make a point against me (as yet again the only posts that you ever make are against me. Funny that.)

        Firstly I’ve never said that Phillips was definitely wrong.

        Secondly, you might notice the phrase - several hours? As I said in an earlier post we might conceivably only be suggesting that Phillips was out by less than an hour.

        Thirdly, have I ever said that Caroline Maxwell has to be categorically discounted?
        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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Certainly in The Telegraph’s Inquest report he said that the door closed by itself so it would have been very natural for him to have pushed it pretty wide open so that he could descend to the ground so that he could sit on the middle step. For him to have not seen the body would have almost had to have been an intentional act for me.
          Or he simply put his left hand on the door and pushed its open wide enough to enable him to sit himself down, facing right.

          Its all good and well to surmise things, but once there are alternatives, let's acknowledge that; he did NOT need to see Chapman, full stop.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


            Secondly, you might notice the phrase - several hours? As I said in an earlier post we might conceivably only be suggesting that Phillips was out by less than an hour.
            Which would STILL amount to almost halving the minimum time he spoke of, and taking more than 60 per cent off the rigor time suggested in Gareths article. Nope, nope, nope. Haggling will not do the trick, Herlock. Shoehorning, squeezing etcetera? Same thing: nope.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              It couldn't swing shut as he sat there. It would only go as far as his body. Whether the door could actually be pushed open and STAY open is not something that can be confirmed. It would take some device on the fence, like a string or something. Otherwise the door would slam shut - which by all accounts it apparently did. Richardson never says he used some sort of mechanism to keep the door fully open, all that is said is that he didn't have to shut it because it shut itself.
              I know that we’ve discussed this point before but there are photographs (or at least a photograph) with the door staying open on its own. Yes we don’t know if there was some device holding it open or whether it was even the same door but it’s hardly unlikely that the door might have stayed open once pushed past a certain point, as many doors do.
              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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                I know that we’ve discussed this point before but there are photographs (or at least a photograph) with the door staying open on its own. Yes we don’t know if there was some device holding it open or whether it was even the same door but it’s hardly unlikely that the door might have stayed open once pushed past a certain point, as many doors do.
                Nor is it a given. Once again: we cannot rule out that it obscured Chapman on that day.

                As you say, that pic you are speaking of was taken many years after the murders, methinks. Any device may or may. not have been supplied at a later stage.

                Whichever, we will always come back to how we cannot know.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

                  Hi HS

                  From memory, didn`t the door close shut on it`s own, unless fully opened on it`s hinges ?
                  Richardson would know this, and if planning to sit on the step, he would naturally push it fully open so it wouldn`t swing shut whilst he`s sitting there.
                  I know I should have checked the above before posting, perhaps someone else can confirm ?
                  I'm sure I've seen it said that the door had a spring on the top so that it was self-closing. We had screen doors like that when I was a child (except that our springs were mounted in the middle), and indeed, if you pushed the door entirely open, with the door flat against the side of the house, it would stay open. Otherwise it would close on its own.

                  I see no reason for him to have opened it all the way, though. We used to have an insulated zinc box sitting on the porch to the right of the door, where the dairy man would drop off milk, butter, orange juice*, etc, before anyone was up. When I went to retrieve the deliveries from the box, I don't think I ever opened the door all the way. Had I done so, I'd have had to take a couple steps out onto the porch to have closed it again. I just gave it a push, let it bump me in the butt while I was bent over picking up the milk, and then it closed by itself when I cleared out of the doorway. The fact that it was already in contact with my butt when I came back inside kept the door from slamming with no effort required on my part, which made things easier.


                  * I grew up thinking of orange juice as a dairy product, even though I knew full well whence it came. It was just in that category to me.
                  - Ginger

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    Or he simply put his left hand on the door and pushed its open wide enough to enable him to sit himself down, facing right.

                    Its all good and well to surmise things, but once there are alternatives, let's acknowledge that; he did NOT need to see Chapman, full stop.
                    But the point is that Richardson said that he couldn’t have missed the body. How dumb would a man have to be not to realise that a door conceals an area?
                    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 am a bit late to the thread and did not vote because the option I wanted wasn't there. The closest was option four, that the witnesses were correct but Phillips t.o.d. was incorrect. The reason I did not vote option four is that I am not sure their timings were wrong. Their stories are all on a timeline that corroborate each other, so no reason to think they made an error if the t.o.d was wrong. They would all have had to make an error independently that was in line with the errors made by the other two. That seems unlikely to me. Of course, this would mean Phillips had made an error that it is difficult to understand. That seems more likely to me than the alternative though.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                        I am a bit late to the thread and did not vote because the option I wanted wasn't there. The closest was option four, that the witnesses were correct but Phillips t.o.d. was incorrect. The reason I did not vote option four is that I am not sure their timings were wrong. Their stories are all on a timeline that corroborate each other, so no reason to think they made an error if the t.o.d was wrong. They would all have had to make an error independently that was in line with the errors made by the other two. That seems unlikely to me. Of course, this would mean Phillips had made an error that it is difficult to understand. That seems more likely to me than the alternative though.
                        Hi Eten, I don’t understand when you say that the witnesses are on a timeline that corroborate each other? Cadosch heard something falling against the fence at around 5.20-5.25 and yet Long claimed to have seen Chapman with a man out on the street at around 5.30.
                        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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Hi Eten, I don’t understand when you say that the witnesses are on a timeline that corroborate each other? Cadosch heard something falling against the fence at around 5.20-5.25 and yet Long claimed to have seen Chapman with a man out on the street at around 5.30.
                          Ah, OK, I guess I read 'the times wrong' as hours out to fit in better with Phillips time of death not just a few minutes either way.
                          Last edited by etenguy; 08-14-2019, 09:47 PM.

                          Comment



                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            But the point is that Richardson said that he couldn’t have missed the body. How dumb would a man have to be not to realise that a door conceals an area?
                            I'm sure he understood that the door masked a space behind itself. He strikes me as a sober man of normal intelligence, and I see no reason to doubt his sincerity. The vast majority of us tend to overestimate, often by a considerable amount, how much of what is around us that we actually notice, especially if it's something that we just don't expect. The mind fills in the blank spots from what ought to be there. Stage magicians have relied on this principle for thousands of years. It's why policemen take classes in observation. Richardson, I think, was providing his own misdirection, wondering first if mom's cellar door would be closed and intact, then switching to his concerns with his boot, and then with getting to work.

                            A murder victim is something you actually have to consciously notice to be sure it's there. Your mind won't fill in something as unusual as that from peripheral clues and half-seen glances. Think of the times in your life when you've seen something you absolutely did not expect, and how it took a moment to accept it as real, and not a misperception on your part.

                            I think he's being completely truthful, and that he couldn't even imagine that he might have overlooked a dead woman almost under his feet. I'm also sure that he could have missed her. He wasn't looking to see what was in the yard, but concentrating on the state of the cellar door. That done, it was on to fixing his boot, and then leaving. As I've said before, I'm by no means convinced that the body was already there, but I think it could have been.
                            - Ginger

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              But the point is that Richardson said that he couldn’t have missed the body. How dumb would a man have to be not to realise that a door conceals an area?
                              As "dumb" as many people out here. I was just as dumb myself for many years. Scores of people say "he couldn't have missed her", and in doing so, they miss out on how the door can have concealed Chapman.
                              The thing is, when we look at the pictures taken from the yard towards the house, it seems impossible that this could have happened. It would have been another matter if the door was opened in a 45 degree angle and a picture was taken from behind it - where Richardsons head will have been - towards the fence.

                              Old trompe l´oueil pairings spring to mind.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                                I am a bit late to the thread and did not vote because the option I wanted wasn't there. The closest was option four, that the witnesses were correct but Phillips t.o.d. was incorrect. The reason I did not vote option four is that I am not sure their timings were wrong. Their stories are all on a timeline that corroborate each other, so no reason to think they made an error if the t.o.d was wrong. They would all have had to make an error independently that was in line with the errors made by the other two. That seems unlikely to me. Of course, this would mean Phillips had made an error that it is difficult to understand. That seems more likely to me than the alternative though.
                                There is the obvious risk that the witnesses were not telling the truth, or they were mistaken. There is no such risk with Phillips, that parameter does not enter the equation in his case. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, that is and remains the truth.

                                And frankly, Cadosch and Long do not corroborate each other. Their combined testimony tells the story backwards, Chapman is killed an falls against the fence, and then she gets up, gets out in Hanbury Street and makes a deal with her killer. That, Etenguy, is not an example of corroborating stories. And both witnesses were dead certain of the timings! They both went "I know I cannot be wrong, because I heard/saw the clock..."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X