Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    Long was definitely wrong, Codosch was mistaken, Phillips more likely was right . For Long to be right, jack had to be ripping Chapman open for say around 10 to 15 mins[ Dr,s estimated time to take to commit all the mutilation on Chapman] from 5.32 to 5.47. Way to light for the murder to happen with so many people getting up and about to start the day . And even more unlikely that jack started ripping Chapman to pieces while Codosch was walking up and down his fence line 4 times just two feet away again in the daylight . So yer i think Phillips was more likely correct with his t.o.d being around 4.30am. Richardson first statement to Swanson has him not sitting on the step at 4.45am only standing at the doorway looking into the yard,particularly to his right to see if the shed door was locked , so he probably had no idea Chapman was behind the open door to his left .
    Theres very little that we can call definite and this isnít one of them.

    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
      Long was definitely wrong, Codosch was mistaken, Phillips more likely was right . For Long to be right, jack had to be ripping Chapman open for say around 10 to 15 mins[ Dr,s estimated time to take to commit all the mutilation on Chapman] from 5.32 to 5.47. Way to light for the murder to happen with so many people getting up and about to start the day . And even more unlikely that jack started ripping Chapman to pieces while Codosch was walking up and down his fence line 4 times just two feet away again in the daylight . So yer i think Phillips was more likely correct with his t.o.d being around 4.30am. Richardson first statement to Swanson has him not sitting on the step at 4.45am only standing at the doorway looking into the yard,particularly to his right to see if the shed door was locked , so he probably had no idea Chapman was behind the open door to his left .
      Why the cherry-picking?

      A second statement supersedes a first one. There was either a misunderstanding or maybe Richardson initially, and understandably, didnít want to put himself on the step with a knife. Then when it was pointed out to him that he could have checked the cellar without seeing all of the yard he had to admit that heíd been on the step. Either way, why would he lie and deliberately put himself at the scene with a knife when there were no witnesses and he didnít have to?

      In his statement Richardson was absolutely unequivocal that he could have seen the whole of the yard and that Chapman wasnít there. Itís way too much of a stretch to suggest that he was too much of an imbecile to realise that there was a part of the garden unseen to him where the body might have been. Especially when he actually saw the body later and so knew itís exact location and how much floor space it took up.

      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • #18
        Chapman would have chosen the location. The killer would therefore have assumed it to have been somewhere where he would have been undisturbed. Itís about how risky he perceived the location to be. We also canít know how much blood contamination there was but the ripper might easily have had an overcoat which he took off for the mutilations then put it back on over any bloodstained clothing before he left.

        Also, do you think that serial killers only kill at night?
        Way to light for the murder to happen with so many people getting up and about to start the day .

        i didnt say, or do i think that they just killed at night ,just in my opinion it would be unlikely he committed the murder at that time for reasons stated above . Hence '' my opinion''

        Comment


        • #19
          Why would the mutilations on Chapman have taken 2 or 3 times longer than those of Eddowes? Of course you will say that Eddowes was killed elsewhere by Gull (and youíd be completely wrong of course)
          Because, as suspected you haven not read the inquest properly to see where it states... Dr. Phillips: ''I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour''.

          Comment


          • #20
            Firstly, daylight didnít increase Cadoschís ability to see through solid objects (like a fence).

            Secondly, itís easily conceivable that by being focused on what he was doing the killer didnít even know that Cadosch was there. How much noise would a man make walking to the loo?
            Firstly codosch was standing on his step when he thought he heard the word ''NO'' come from either 25 or 29 handbury st [ HE WASNT SURE WHERE IT CAME FROM] thus he would have been in full view of the killer, way above the 5 foot six fence and only 3 feet away .

            Comment


            • #21
              A second statement supersedes a first one. There was either a misunderstanding or maybe Richardson initially, and understandably, didnít want to put himself on the step with a knife. Then when it was pointed out to him that he could have checked the cellar without seeing all of the yard he had to admit that heíd been on the step. Either way, why would he lie and deliberately put himself at the scene with a knife when there were no witnesses and he didnít have to?

              In his statement Richardson was absolutely unequivocal that he could have seen the whole of the yard and that Chapman wasnít there. Itís way too much of a stretch to suggest that he was too much of an imbecile to realise that there was a part of the garden unseen to him where the body might have been. Especially when he actually saw the body later and so knew itís exact location and how much floor space it took up.

              Hey im just telling you that when Richardson gave his first statement to Swanson on the morning right after the event that in Swanson report Richardson makes no mention of sitting on the step cutting his boot with a knife , so if you want to use anther report of Richardsons to suit your narrative go ahead, im only telling you the one that was given right after the murder . i suggest you check out Wolf Vanderlinens dissertation for exactly what Richardson said to Swanson

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Way to light for the murder to happen with so many people getting up and about to start the day .

                i didnt say, or do i think that they just killed at night ,just in my opinion it would be unlikely he committed the murder at that time for reasons stated above . Hence '' my opinion''
                The above is a definite statement. Nowhere do you say that is just your opinion.

                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                  Because, as suspected you haven not read the inquest properly to see where it states... Dr. Phillips: ''I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour''.
                  I have read it. If the ripper could have performed the mutilations on Eddowes in 5 or 6 minutes he could have done the same on Chapman. You appear to consider Phillips infallible?
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Firstly codosch was standing on his step when he thought he heard the word ''NO'' come from either 25 or 29 handbury st [ HE WASNT SURE WHERE IT CAME FROM] thus he would have been in full view of the killer, way above the 5 foot six fence and only 3 feet away .
                    This is incorrect.

                    At the Inquest Cadosch said that - As he returned across the yard, to the back door of his house, he heard a voice say quite close to him....no.

                    So he wasnít on the step he was at ground level.

                    The fact that he admitted that he couldnít be absolutely certain, to me, doesnít tell of a man simply making things up. No one could have challenged him so he could easily have said that the word definitely came from 29 but he didnít. His caution adds to his plausibility.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                      Hey im just telling you that when Richardson gave his first statement to Swanson on the morning right after the event that in Swanson report Richardson makes no mention of sitting on the step cutting his boot with a knife , so if you want to use anther report of Richardsons to suit your narrative go ahead, im only telling you the one that was given right after the murder . i suggest you check out Wolf Vanderlinens dissertation for exactly what Richardson said to Swanson
                      Firstly, Richardson did not give a statement to Swanson at any time (and Wolf Vanderlinden doesnít make this mistake either by the way) In his report to the Home Office dated 19th October Swanson wrote - 4.45 a.m. 8th Sept. John Richardson Of 29 Hanbury Street. stated that he went out and sat on the steps leading to the back yard, to cut a piece of leather off his boot, but he did not observe the body of a woman.

                      At the Inquest, under oath, Richardson confirmed this.

                      Also at the Inquest, Inspector Joseph Chandler said that heíd spoken to Richardson in the passage of number 29 just before 7.00 am and that Richardson had just told him that heíd looked into the back yard to check on the cellar door. He didnít not mention cutting his boot but he did say that he was sure that Annie wasnít there.

                      So...might Richardson have not mentioned sitting on the step? Yes, of course he might not have mentioned it if Chandler was telling the truth. So we have options:

                      Chandler misunderstood what Richardson told him.

                      Richardson lied for reasons unknown.

                      Richardson just said that he looked into the yard and that the body wasnít there. He thought that that was enough information and that they would just accept that he couldnít have missed a mutilated corpse.

                      Richardson was wary of placing himself in the yard with a knife and so he initially left that part out until it was pointed out to him that he could have checked the cellar doors from the steps and consequently have missed the corpse.


                      None of this changes the fact that he told the Inquest the full story. What did he have to lose by not mentioning the shoe? If theyíd said - well if you only looked into the yard you might have missed the corpse - he might have just said - fair point - with absolutely no issue. But no, preferred to place himself in that yard with a knife.

                      Its overwhelmingly more likely that Richardson was telling the truth. He sat on the step and had a full view of the yard and couldnít possibly have missed a horribly mutilated corpse.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                        Phillips more likely was right . For Long to be right, jack had to be ripping Chapman open for say around 10 to 15 mins[ Dr,s estimated time to take to commit all the mutilation on Chapman] from 5.32 to 5.47. Way to light for the murder to happen with so many people getting up and about to start the day . And even more unlikely that jack started ripping Chapman to pieces while Codosch was walking up and down his fence line 4 times just two feet away again in the daylight . So yer i think Phillips was more likely correct with his t.o.d being around 4.30am. Richardson first statement to Swanson has him not sitting on the step at 4.45am only standing at the doorway looking into the yard,particularly to his right to see if the shed door was locked , so he probably had no idea Chapman was behind the open door to his left .

                        Very good Post FISHY! Thank you.

                        If Doctor's TOD was little more than a guesswork at the time, those disturbed testimonies were little less than a guesswork!



                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • #27

                          Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                          Very good Post FISHY! Thank you.

                          If Doctor's TOD was little more than a guesswork at the time, those disturbed testimonies were little less than a guesswork!



                          The Baron
                          There is a word for a person that hardly ever makes any posts but on the rare occasion that they do itís always to take a swipe at a single poster. We are all familiar with this word.

                          You really do need to get a life Baron. You almost never discus this case. All that you do is occasionally pipe up to make some kind of criticism against me. You appear obsessed with me and whatever I post on whatever aspect of this case. If the occasion ever arises when you can make an intelligent, evidence-based point thatís not an offence to logic and reason then perhaps you will be worth engaging with. But simply making idiotic posts just agreeing with someone purely because I disagree with them doesnít cut it. You might try having some thoughts of your own for example, as opposed to what you did on the Druitt thread which was simply parrot everything that Trevor said. No one takes you seriously for a minute. I disagree strongly with Fishy but at least he puts forward his argument rather that just posting one or two sentences at a time simply of mockery and insults.

                          You have never made a single post worth bothering with. Quite a record.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                            So yer i think Phillips was more likely correct with his t.o.d being around 4.30am.
                            Keep in mind that Phillips actually did NOT think the murder occurred at around 4.30. He thought that at a stretch, it could have been committed this late, but he actually favored a time EARLIER than 4.30! Here is the all-important snippet from the DT:

                            "[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

                            So since the morning was cold and the damage to the body extensive, Phillips could see his way through to accepting 4.30, but he actually advised against it - to his mind, it went down well before that time.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              Keep in mind that Phillips actually did NOT think the murder occurred at around 4.30. He thought that at a stretch, it could have been committed this late, but he actually favored a time EARLIER than 4.30! Here is the all-important snippet from the DT:

                              "[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

                              So since the morning was cold and the damage to the body extensive, Phillips could see his way through to accepting 4.30, but he actually advised against it - to his mind, it went down well before that time.

                              Exactly Fish.

                              Whether this supports the Lechmere theory or that she was killed somewhere else or not, to my mind It is now the most reliable source that we have.

                              It is the most logical TOD too, no prostitute that knows the place will take her client there as the people have already started getting around.




                              The Baron
                              Last edited by The Baron; 08-11-2019, 09:52 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                                The Baron

                                . Exactly Fish.

                                Whether this supports the Lechmere theory or that she was killed somewhere else or not, to my mind It is now the most reliable source that we have
                                Despite that there were three witnesses who all contradicted this including a man that actually saw the yard and said that there was no body there. There is nothing reliable about TOD estimates.

                                . It is the most logical TOD too, no prostitute that knows the place will take her client there as the people have already started getting around.
                                You should read more about the case. Richardson had previously removed couples from the location because they were engaged in the same activity as Annie and her killer.


                                Do you have any opinions on this case that haven't been arrived at purely because they are the opposite of mine?



                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X