Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • #31
    The above is a definite statement. Nowhere do you say that is just your opinion.
    It was implied that it was my opinion ,your nit picking .

    Comment


    • #32
      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?
      Yes .... but were not talking about Eddowes were talking about Chapman, and im just quoting what he said the time it would take to inflict all the injuries on her, was not less than 15 minutes .So no not infallible just quoting his opinion .which if he was correct , the point i was trying to make was , it would be hard to see the killer inflicting all those injuries from 5.30 to 5.45 in the daylight and with people about to start their day . i dont think thats to much for one to come to that conclusion .

      Comment


      • #33
        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 definitelycame from 29 but he didnít. His caution adds to his plausibility.
        Albert codosch ''As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. '' so this is correct.... ''just as i was going ''THROUGH'' the door'' for Albert to be going through the door he had to be on the step, and being on that step he would indeed been visible and a lot higher that 5/6 fence.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.
          Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

          The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot? [ pretty straight forward question ]

          Chandler "No." 18[ pretty straightforward answer]

          The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." 19

          YOU can see why ill stick to this version , especially this part
          Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." 19


          Last edited by FISHY1118; 08-11-2019, 11:44 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            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!
            Thanks baron , glad you liked the post , i see you and Herlock have a past which i wont comment on , all i will say is, its important that both parties put forward their ideas for a healthy debate when discussing JTR related matters. He has my respect where thats concerned.

            Comment


            • #36
              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.
              HI fisherman , yes im aware of that , i was using the 4.30 time when Phillips 6.30 arrival [ 2 hours] .. and yes im aware he also thought it might have been earlier.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Albert codosch ''As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. '' so this is correct.... ''just as i was going ''THROUGH'' the door'' for Albert to be going through the door he had to be on the step, and being on that step he would indeed been visible and a lot higher that 5/6 fence.
                You will have to provide a source for this Fishy because it appears to me that this is just Wolf Vanderlindenís interpretation of what occurred and not what Cadosch actually said. He never mentioned - just as I was going through the door.

                He actually said that he had heard the word no as he returned across the yard.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
                  The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
                  [Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
                  [Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
                  [Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
                  By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
                  The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
                  [Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
                  [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
                  The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
                  By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

                    The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot? [ pretty straight forward question ]

                    Chandler "No." 18[ pretty straightforward answer]

                    The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." 19

                    YOU can see why ill stick to this version , especially this part
                    Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." 19

                    Of course I can see why you stick to the earlier version Fishy. We all can. Itís because you feel that it helps your case. You have an agenda.

                    The facts are simple. At the Inquest, under oath, and with no compulsion to put himself in the yard with a knife, Richardson said that he sat on the step. The suggestion that he might not have been aware that there might have been an area behind the door which might have concealed a body is nonsense. He returned to the site later and saw the body in situ. There could be no mistake. He was 100% confident that he could have see all of the yard and he was 100% confident that there was no body there. Because there wasnít.

                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      Albert Cadosch [Cadoche] deposed: I live at 27, Hanbury-street, and am a carpenter. 27 is next door to 29, Hanbury-street. On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly.
                      The Coroner: Did you look to see what it was? - No.
                      [Coroner] Had you heard any noise while you were at the end of your yard? - No.
                      [Coroner] Any rustling of clothes? - No. I then went into the house, and from there into the street to go to my work. It was about two minutes after half-past five as I passed Spitalfields Church.
                      [Coroner] Do you ever hear people in these yards? - Now and then, but not often.
                      By a Juryman: I informed the police the same night after I returned from my work.
                      The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.
                      [Coroner] And you had not the curiosity to look over? - No, I had not.
                      [Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.
                      The Foreman of the Jury: It's a pity you did not.
                      By the Coroner. - I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.
                      This goes to show that the phrase - there is a first time for everything - is true. For the first time ever....you are correct.

                      But as he didnít turn round itís irrelevant. If the ripper was in the process of killing Annie itís of course likely that they would have been below the level of the fence anyway.

                      And as he was so close to the fence it increases the chance of him being correct that the word came from number 29.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Of course I can see why you stick to the earlier version Fishy. We all can. Itís because you feel that it helps your case. You have an agenda.

                        The facts are simple. At the Inquest, under oath, and with no compulsion to put himself in the yard with a knife, Richardson said that he sat on the step. The suggestion that he might not have been aware that there might have been an area behind the door which might have concealed a body is nonsense. He returned to the site later and saw the body in situ. There could be no mistake. He was 100% confident that he could have see all of the yard and he was 100% confident that there was no body there. Because there wasnít.
                        No one can be sure which testimony or statement Richardson gave was the absolute truth, only that he definitely gave two different versions of what he did that morning .Which entitles me to choose one or the other, as you have done to suit what you believe to be that suits your narrative , so be it . Yes it helps my case, and i will always post thing that help it . But Herlock i dont have any agenda just my opinion .

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          No one can be sure which testimony or statement Richardson gave was the absolute truth, only that he definitely gave two different versions of what he did that morning .Which entitles me to choose one or the other, as you have done to suit what you believe to be that suits your narrative , so be it . Yes it helps my case, and i will always post thing that help it . But Herlock i dont have any agenda just my opinion .
                          In both versions he said that he could see the yard and that there was no body.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            T
                            his goes to show that the phrase - there is a first time for everything - is true. For the first time ever....you are correct.

                            But as he didnít turn round itís irrelevant. If the ripper was in the process of killing Annie itís of course likely that they would have been below the level of the fence anyway.

                            And as he was so close to the fence it increases the chance of him being correct that the word came from number 29.
                            Well i wouldn't say for the first time . So codosch goes into the yard via the steps , comes back to hear the ''no'' as he goes through the door , returns back into 3 or 4 mins later, returns back to hear the ''thud'' have i got that right ? . All this in less than ten minutes while the killer was mutilating Chapman and he never gave a thought to codosch being so close 4 times up and down his yard, and its daylight dont forget . Thats one very cool killer if you ask me .

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              T

                              Well i wouldn't say for the first time . So codosch goes into the yard via the steps , comes back to hear the ''no'' as he goes through the door , returns back into 3 or 4 mins later, returns back to hear the ''thud'' have i got that right ? . All this in less than ten minutes while the killer was mutilating Chapman and he never gave a thought to codosch being so close 4 times up and down his yard, and its daylight dont forget . Thats one very cool killer if you ask me .
                              How much noise does a man make walking across a yard. With the killer engrossed in what he was doing itís not at all unlikely that he didnít even know that Cadosch was 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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                                T

                                Well i wouldn't say for the first time . So codosch goes into the yard via the steps , comes back to hear the ''no'' as he goes through the door , returns back into 3 or 4 mins later, returns back to hear the ''thud'' have i got that right ? . All this in less than ten minutes while the killer was mutilating Chapman and he never gave a thought to codosch being so close 4 times up and down his yard, and its daylight dont forget . Thats one very cool killer if you ask me .
                                A point that has to be made is this Fishy. The transcript for Chapman Inquest no longer exists. The version on Casebook comes from The Telegraph newspaper and indeed says that Cadosch heard no when he was going through the backdoor. Evans and Skinnerís Sourcebook on the other hand use The Times version which doesnít say that. From that one we have Cadosch hearing no as he crossed the yard.

                                So we have 2 newspaper reports, written by a journalist from notes made at the Inquest. The question is....which journalist was accurate?

                                Id suggest that neither of us knows the answer to that one.
                                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