Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Would the killer strike at 5am when daylight was breaking and the residents were stirring?
    Exactly. Would that be in line with his earlier weekday strikes? No.

    Try a perspective where no Phillips is involved and no TOD is offered. What would happen? Personally, I would nevertheless have problems with Cadosch and Long and their mutually gainsaying timings. If I needed to opt for one witness being better than the other, I´d go for Long who claimed to recognize the woman she had seen as Chapman. it puts her a level over Cadosch.
    As for Richardson, I´d not be happy about his evidence, but I think I would perhaps give him the benefit of a doubt anyway, and accept that he was there - he could simply have missed the body and even if he didn't, there would be legroom for Chapman having been killed in the dying minutes of darkness anyway.

    Once Phillips enters the equation, the problems go away. We can confidently skip over Long and Cadosch, and we can see that Richardson must be wrong too. We end up with a nighttime slaying at around the same hours that the other weekday victims fell prey, and so we need not marvel at a killer escaping in full daylight, all bloodied and gory.

    Its another case of witness fallibility, simple as that. Its not the first nor the last time it will happen.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      i couldnt beleive it when i first heard it also. its getting light, people are getting up, amd he strikes in the backyard mere feet from the residents.

      but tje evidence points to thats exactly what he did. crazy.
      Or there was nothing crazy at all about it (well...), and the Chapman murder ties exactly with with the others. And we need not look for an explanation as to why nobody saw her between her last visit to the doss house and the time of her death - because she lay slain in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street for most of that time.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

        Doesn't appear that he was, or that he sidled meekly out of the door facing right, which he'd have to have opened wide enough to allow himself to sit on the second step and place his feet on the flagstones. His testimony seems pretty emphatic to me:

        Did you notice any object in the yard? - No, sir. I could not have failed to notice the deceased if she had been there then.
        Did you sit on the top step? - No, the second step.
        Where were your feet? - On the flags of the yard.
        You must have been quite close to where the body was found? - Quite right, sir. If she had been there at the time I must have seen her.
        I’d say that it was about as emphatic as could be Sam. If you open a door intending to walk down some steps it just wouldn’t have been a natural action to open the door slightly. You would hold it open to 90 degrees or more. I just can’t see the remotes possibility of him opening that door, descending the steps and then sitting down without seeing the body. And of course Richardson actually saw the body where it lay. He knew it’s position and the floor space that it took up in regard to the door.
        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’d say that it was about as emphatic as could be Sam. If you open a door intending to walk down some steps it just wouldn’t have been a natural action to open the door slightly. You would hold it open to 90 degrees or more.

          Oh, how I would love to see that doorology thesis where this is quantified in degrees and inches! And, of course, ninety degrees could well be enough to obscure Chapman, depending on where exactly Richardson was when the door was at that angle.

          I just can’t see the remotes possibility of him opening that door, descending the steps and then sitting down without seeing the body. And of course Richardson actually saw the body where it lay. He knew it’s position and the floor space that it took up in regard to the door.
          Exactly. You cannot see it: a closed mind. Again.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 08-15-2019, 12:22 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            i couldnt beleive it when i first heard it also. its getting light, people are getting up, amd he strikes in the backyard mere feet from the residents.

            but tje evidence points to thats exactly what he did. crazy.
            Maybe he’d homed in on another prostitute a bit earlier while it was still dark but something prevented him (some kind of intrusion?) He then got to Annie just as it was getting light? Annie would have been desperate fo cash so would probably have re-assured him that the backyard of number 29 was safe. The killer would probably have trusted her previous experience of using the yard. There was still an undoubted risk though but the assumed safety of the yard combined with the fact that he was only going to be in there a short time (plus he was likely desperate to kill and mutilate) might have convinced him to go for it?
            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

              Maybe he’d homed in on another prostitute a bit earlier while it was still dark but something prevented him (some kind of intrusion?) He then got to Annie just as it was getting light? Annie would have been desperate fo cash so would probably have re-assured him that the backyard of number 29 was safe. The killer would probably have trusted her previous experience of using the yard. There was still an undoubted risk though but the presumed safety of the yard combined with the fact that he was only going to be in there a short time (plus he was likely desperate to kill and mutilate) might have convinced him to go for it?
              But it was not getting light until around 5 AM. And Phillips was adamant that Chapman had probably been dead for more than two hours at 6.30. Plus there was onsetting rigor, pointing to a TOD at the earliest around 3.30 if we go by the extreme allowed for in Gareths post.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Exactly. You cannot see it: a closed mind. Again.
                You tend to get annoyed when people accuse you of bias Fish and yet you are quite happy to call me closed minded.

                What we are being asked to believe is simply this: that John Richardson was so denuded of spacial awareness or even reason that he couldn’t understand or appreciate the possibility that a solid object like a door might block a persons view of something. That he could have sat there with the door against the left hand side of his body obscuring a sizeable area behind it and not realised this fact? And that even after seeing the body where it lay he still couldn’t accept the possibility of that body remaining hidden to him.

                Then to accommodate Phillips TOD we have to accuse Cadosch of lying. On a quiet early morning he heard something brush against a fence that he was standing 2 feet away from. It’s difficult to see how he could have been mistaken. If he did hear something then it must have been the ripper of course.

                And yet you are saying that Phillips couldn’t have made a mistake. There has to be a chance that he was until a Forensic medical expert or two step forward and say categorically that Phillips couldn’t possibly have been wrong. Until that occurs we have plausible evidence that he might indeed have been wrong.
                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

                  You tend to get annoyed when people accuse you of bias Fish and yet you are quite happy to call me closed minded.

                  Those are two different matters. And how would you NOT have a closed mind, when you compare my likelihood to be correct with the Loch Ness monster existing? If you can point to where a bias of mine makes me come to a closed mind conclusion, please do so.

                  What we are being asked to believe is simply this: that John Richardson was so denuded of spacial awareness or even reason that he couldn’t understand or appreciate the possibility that a solid object like a door might block a persons view of something. That he could have sat there with the door against the left hand side of his body obscuring a sizeable area behind it? And that even after seeing the body where it lay he still couldn’t accept the possibility of that body remaining hidden to him.

                  Yes, precisely. Ask yourself: Would it be the first time in history that a very certain witness was wrong? Add to that how numerous people out here say that the body COULD NOT have been missed by Richardson in spite of how evidence to the contrary has been provided, and you may start to see what I am talking about.

                  Then to accommodate Phillips TOD we have to accuse Cadosch of lying. On a quiet early morning he heard something brush against a fence that he was standing 2 feet away from. It’s difficult to see how he could have been mistaken. If he did hear something then it must have been the ripper of course.

                  No, it "must" not have been the Ripper at all. Especially since we know quite well that Phillips categorically ruled out that Chapman died at that stage. Ergo, it was either somebody or something else - or nothing at all.

                  And yet you are saying that Phillips couldn’t have made a mistake.

                  Not really, no - I am saying that he would not have made a mistake of that magnitude.

                  There has to be a chance that he was until a Forensic medical expert or two step forward and say categorically that Phillips couldn’t possibly have been wrong. Until that occurs we have plausible evidence that he might indeed have been wrong.
                  The factual part of the matter is not affected by anybody stepping forward and acknowledging it. It is what it is, and it remains just that. Although I would personally not mind it happening. If it had been only one parameter, your case would have been bad but better. But its two. And certainly, Phillips will have looked at other parameters too, but left them out in the testimony since they changed nothing.

                  PS. Claiming that everything I say is less trustworthy than what people with no suspect say does not "annoy" me. It pisses me off and makes me furious.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 08-15-2019, 01:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Then to accommodate Phillips TOD we have to accuse Cadosch of lying. On a quiet early morning he heard something brush against a fence that he was standing 2 feet away from. It’s difficult to see how he could have been mistaken. If he did hear something then it must have been the ripper of course.

                    No, it "must" not have been the Ripper at all. Especially since we know quite well that Phillips categorically ruled out that Chapman died at that stage. Ergo, it was either somebody or something else - or nothing at all.
                    What?

                    According to Phillips Chapman was already dead by the time that Cadosch heard something brush against the fence. So are we suggesting that someone else was moving around in that yard entirely innocently with a mutilated corpse lying there?
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • There could be confirmation bias in the case of Cadosch. He might have heard something that morning. Then when he learns there was a murder next door, it becomes a cry of "No" and something banging against the fence, but he could have heard a sound from elsewhere, or it was someone else who found the body but never came forward.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        But it was not getting light until around 5 AM. And Phillips was adamant that Chapman had probably been dead for more than two hours at 6.30. Plus there was onsetting rigor, pointing to a TOD at the earliest around 3.30 if we go by the extreme allowed for in Gareths post.
                        And yet there is no body in the yard at 4.45am according to Johnson. Since he was on his way to work we can be reasonably sure of the time, give or take 10 to 15 minutes. It is unlikely in the extreme he would have missed a corpse. So either he is extremely unobservant, he lied or the body was not there as he states. If the body was not there, is it your view that is because the murder had not been committed yet or because the murder had been committed elsewhere and moved later - or do you challenge Johnson's testimony? I struggle to discount his testimony but accept he may have not been entirely precise about the time.

                        Cadosch could have heard anything and Long may be mistaken about the identity of the woman she saw, but Johnson's evidence is much harder for me to discount.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          There could be confirmation bias in the case of Cadosch. He might have heard something that morning. Then when he learns there was a murder next door, it becomes a cry of "No" and something banging against the fence, but he could have heard a sound from elsewhere, or it was someone else who found the body but never came forward.
                          There’s always that possibility Harry. The thing that works in favour of Cadosch for me is that he was so close to the fence at the time. Also desperate being fairly cautious about the no he was a lot more confident about the sound.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • If you watch this You tube video of James Mason visiting 29 Hanbury St, to me it seems nigh on impossible for John Richardson to miss Annie's Body.
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko..._0m7Oq9pA3NogM
                            Regards Darryl

                            Comment


                            • Couple of stills from said video

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                                If you watch this You tube video of James Mason visiting 29 Hanbury St, to me it seems nigh on impossible for John Richardson to miss Annie's Body.
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Ko..._0m7Oq9pA3NogM
                                Regards Darryl
                                I

                                Great clip - thanks. I agree totally with you, which means either Johnson was lying, Annie's body was moved or Phillips was wrong about the time of death - I think the latter is most likely, see below.

                                "If someone dies while engaged in strenuous activity like exercising or struggling against drowning, rigor mortis can set in immediately. This instant onset, sometimes called cadaveric spasm, happens because the person's muscles, at the moment of death, were depleted of oxygen energy and ATP. This is why the victim of a violent attack may still be clutching the attacker's hair or a piece of clothing."
                                Last edited by etenguy; 08-15-2019, 08:05 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X