Chapman’s death.

[Fisherman]

He would probably have said there was no need.

Morning Advertiser 13 Sept
"Did you sit on the top step? -No, sir, the second step.
Where were your feet? -On the flags of the yard, sir.
You must have been quite close to where the woman was found? -She was found lying just where my feet were."

Yes, he may well have thought that there was no need - and he may well have been wrong! But I do think that he must have been asked whether he looked behind the door or not!

[Fisherman]

Parallel with the fence, but two yards away from it. Which, if true, would make it impossible for Richardson to miss. However, I very much suspect this is a misreporting of the line you mentioned "parallel with the fencing dividing the two yards"

Yes, there would not have been any two yards to spare, so I think you will be correct on the score.

[Fisherman]

That would be entirely congruent with her head being between 6 and 9 inches from the line of the bottom step.

Sorry, I don´t get it. Could you expand? What do you mean by "the line of the bottom step"? And how would it be congruent with the two yards thing...? I normally have little problem following your language, but this eludes me.

[FISHY1118]

I

’m afraid not Fishy. The idea that Phillips must have been correct has been thoroughly and irrevocably exploded. It’s game over. Expert after expert tell us this. Unless you can show me that you are a Forensic experts then you have nothing to add that’s of note. Phillips was overwhelmingly likely to have been wrong.

What rubbish you speak ''thoroughly and irrevocably exploded'' BULLDADASH . The same modern expert after expert also tell us that Eddowes kidney and uterus couldn't possibly be removed in the dark in 5 mins. But the great Herlock has no trouble not believing them, do you ? Phillips was overwhelmingly likely to have been right, so get down off your high horse and stop using modern medical experts to discredit Phillips when you not prepared to except their conclusions in the Eddowes case ... Game over for you .


The rest of your post is not worth responding to, its that full of nonsense . Seriously Herlock this is over for you pal , your so blind to ANY OTHER possibility of a different scenario to the Chapman murder. You,ve been sucked in to believing as gospel the contradictory testimonies of L.C.R , like ive said in a previous post any intelligent person who is interested in the Chapman murder should start with the Wolf Vanderlinen article and not with L.C.R so my advice to you would be to go back there too . Game Over Herlock .

[packers stem]

It's a ridiculous suggestion that Richardson could possibly fail to see the body as it was starting to get light ...... especially as he was supposed to be sitting on the steps inches from a body.
Therefore the body wasn't there at 4.45

We then have medical opinion of Phillips which on it's own could be suspected as being a little wayward ,although so wayward as to fit a 5.30 death is extreme, but it is independently backed up by the digestion and by nobody seeing her wander around for four hours .
The quite obvious answer is that she was already dead between 3 and 4 but was not yet in the yard .

Far too many ifs and buts have to come into play to fit the 5.30
Phillip's dismissed ,she ate something else later ,she fell asleep etc

However unpalatable it may be to some
She was dead earlier than 5.30 ,she just wasn't in situ

[Fisherman]

If Chapman was moved to the yard after Richardson was there, then she was moved in broad daylight. Not likely. Moreover, why was there arterial spray on the fence if she was not killed there...?

[FISHY1118]

The quite obvious answer is that she was already dead between 3 and 4 but was not yet in the yard

.

So packer are you saying she was killed elsewhere then dumped in the yard ? because if you are youll cop a lot of stick for that around here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dave, I don’t know if it’s just me but that has just appeared as an empty box? I’ve seen this happen before but I haven’t a clue what causes it?

[DJA]

Just my old laptop. Mind of it's own. Could not delete either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very many people who want fifteen minutes of fame come forward voluntarily - it´s not as if they feel a need to wait for an invitation.

Richardson WAS adamant. And so was Long. It WAS Chapman she had seen and she DID see her at 5.30. The problem is that Cadosch was ALSO adamant - he DID hear what he heard well before Long saw Chapman in Hanbury Street.

Adamant is adamant. But is is not necessarily correct by any stretch of the imagination.

Phillis was ALSO adamant. NO LESS than two hours. But we can be sure in his case that he did not come for fifteen minutes of fame!

He is too tough a nut for Richardson to even begin to crack. I mean he could not even cut a piece of leather from his boot. Then again, he said that he could - and did. Which was untrue. Although he was adamant that he had done so.

To be precise Phillips said 2-4 hours but qualified this opinion to admit that he could have been wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for how Chapman was lying and how that would have disabled Richardson any chance to miss her, that is patently untrue. If the door was not fully opened, it certainly could - and WOULD - have obscured Chapman from view as long as Richardson was behind the door. It is all a question about whether or not he at any remove in time put his head past the door blade - and whether he looked down to his left when doing so. It also deserves repeating that although all representations we have of the scene depicts it in daylight, it was DARK as Richardson was there.

He could have missed her, the police recognized that he could have done so - but some out here claim that it is impossible, until they are put under pressure and start gabbing on about how he would have been "imbecile" if he missed her, as if intelligence was what makes us able to see things! A remarkable statement indeed!

It was getting light.

Despite all of this twisting and turning the fact of the matter is a very simple one and it’s the reason that I used the word imbecile.

Anyone that says that Richardson might not have seen her is saying that he wouldn’t have been aware of the fact that a solid door can possibly impede a person’s view. Again he was adamant that he could see the entirety of the yard. It has to be remembered that Richardson actually saw the body where it lay. He knew it’s position. He knew how much floor space it took up. And so were being asked to accept that, after seeing the body, Richardson would have had to have been such an imbecile that he didn’t even think:

“Hmm, looking at where the body is perhaps the door blocked my view of it?”

No, he was certain that the body couldn’t have been hidden by the door.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, I am not sure that I will respond to much more of yours. It lacks more and more of the quality that inspires a wish to do so. Failures to see things being comparable to imbecility, skin coolness prohibiting the ability to feel for underlying warmth, Chapman loosing much more blood than Eddowes, Phillips contradicting himself at the inquest - what will be the next move, one wonders?

Every point that you have made has been exposed. You’ve lost every single one without exception. The testimony of experts speak for themselves. It’s black and white. There is no debate left to be have. Phillips should be disregarded.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is ANYBODY going to answer my question? Would Richardson have been asked whether he checked behind the door or not? And what would his answer have been?

We can’t know whether this question was asked. But of course it’s irrelevant. Richardson was aware of the properties of a door. As far as we know he wasn’t visually impaired. And he said that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there. The police would also have been aware of the properties of a door and so if they had asked him he stuck to his statement. If they didn’t ask him then we have to ask why? Probably because they realised that the body couldn’t have remained hidden.

Therefore.....it wasn’t there. Unless he was an unmitigated imbecile of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry, I don´t get it. Could you expand? What do you mean by "the line of the bottom step"? And how would it be congruent with the two yards thing...? I normally have little problem following your language, but this eludes me.

Sam can correct me of course.

If you drew a line horizontally at the base of the bottom step and extended it across the fence and then you measured 6 to 9 inches from that line in the direction of the bottom of the yard and made a mark, that would have been the top of Annie’s head. Then if you measured from Annie’s feet to the wall of the house you would have got around 2 yards. Probably a bit more.

[Fisherman]

To be precise Phillips said 2-4 hours but qualified this opinion to admit that he could have been wrong.

No, Phillips did not say 2-4 hours, he said "at least two hours and probably more". He never gave any extreme. And he never qualified his opinion as I have shown.

So its zero out of two for you.