Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post




    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.



    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?


    As you are probably aware, the police did not invest much in Long, and it was stated that no-one ever saw the Whitechapel killer. Ergo, those who were there and who had first-hand insight into the value of the three witnesses and their testimony, seemingly did not invest all that much in them.

    Saying that there is NOTHING reliable about TOD estimates is not true, by the way. It is not an exact science by any means and was less so back then, but it nevertheless applies that when somebody is very freshly dead, that somebody will not be all cold. Yes, I know: maybe Phillips wasn't up to scratch (or touch) that day, but I really think he was very certain and for good reasons. Not least because there was onsetting rigor that should not have been there if the victim had only been dead less than an hour.

    The closer in time to death the medico examines a victim, the smaller the chance that he will get things very wrong. If an hour only had passed, the body would still be warm, simple as. And there would not be any onsetting rigor, simple as.

    However, if Chapman had been dead for some three hours or so, then although it was cold, there would probably be a commencing rigor and the body would be cold, or almost cold - which was the case here.

    Witnesses are very often unreliable. Witnesses in high-profile cases like the Ripper case, are perhaps even more likely to be unreliable, not least in the respect that they may be making things up or exaggerating to make it into the papers. It is not as if we were not aware of the mechanism, is it?

    Let the Baron be happy about my post if he wants to, Herlock. If we were to disallow views wo do not like, we would run the risk of becoming Ripperologists.

    Comment


    • #47
      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.

      Yes i see what your saying , and Codosch did in fact walk in a diagonal line across his backyard to the loo taking him away from the fence line . However is more the fact that while he was on the step the first time , and returned to the step to go through the door [he did this twice] ,puts him just 1 metre away from the killer 4 times in the 10 mins the killer was mutilating Chapman . Surely jack would have become annoyed at the constant coming and going of someone so close to both him and Annie, yet he continued to do his work in the daylight hours[ITS almost impossible to suggest the killer didnt know someone was on the other side that close] . I just dont see it panning out that way im afraid. I know you dont believe the knight theory thats fine, but with the same vigor i dont believe this one
      Last edited by FISHY1118; 08-12-2019, 08:42 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        As you are probably aware, the police did not invest much in Long, and it was stated that no-one ever saw the Whitechapel killer. Ergo, those who were there and who had first-hand insight into the value of the three witnesses and their testimony, seemingly did not invest all that much in them.

        Saying that there is NOTHING reliable about TOD estimates is not true, by the way. It is not an exact science by any means and was less so back then, but it nevertheless applies that when somebody is very freshly dead, that somebody will not be all cold. Yes, I know: maybe Phillips wasn't up to scratch (or touch) that day, but I really think he was very certain and for good reasons. Not least because there was onsetting rigor that should not have been there if the victim had only been dead less than an hour.

        The closer in time to death the medico examines a victim, the smaller the chance that he will get things very wrong. If an hour only had passed, the body would still be warm, simple as. And there would not be any onsetting rigor, simple as.

        However, if Chapman had been dead for some three hours or so, then although it was cold, there would probably be a commencing rigor and the body would be cold, or almost cold - which was the case here.

        Witnesses are very often unreliable. Witnesses in high-profile cases like the Ripper case, are perhaps even more likely to be unreliable, not least in the respect that they may be making things up or exaggerating to make it into the papers. It is not as if we were not aware of the mechanism, is it?

        Let the Baron be happy about my post if he wants to, Herlock. If we were to disallow views wo do not like, we would run the risk of becoming Ripperologists.
        The reason that I criticise Baron (apart from his content) is that he almost never posts on the Forum and yet when he does itís invariably just to criticise me. Itís obvious that heís just fixated on me for some strange reason.


        You and I disagree on Chapmanís TOD of course Fish which is fine as there are very few certainties in this case.
        Regards

        Herlock






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

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          The reason that I criticise Baron (apart from his content) is that he almost never posts on the Forum and yet when he does itís invariably just to criticise me.
          So he seems to be targetting you personally? Dear me, I cannot even begin to understand what that must feel like.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


            Yes i see what your saying , and Codosch did in fact walk in a diagonal line across his backyard to the loo taking him away from the fence line . However is more the fact that while he was on the step the first time , and returned to the step to go through the door [he did this twice] ,puts him just 1 metre away from the killer 4 times in the 10 mins the killer was mutilating Chapman . Surely jack would have become annoyed at the constant coming and going of someone so close to both him and Annie, yet he continued to do his work in the daylight hours[ITS almost impossible to suggest the killer didnt know someone was on the other side that close] . I just dont see it panning out that way im afraid. I know you dont believe the knight theory thats fine, but with the same vigor i dont believe this one
            There are any number of reasonable possibilities. He might have only heard Cadosch at the door just as he’d subdued and killed Annie. He might therefore have assumed that Cadosch had used the outdoor toilet and wouldn’t be using it again so soon by which time Annie was beyond making any noise. As I said in an earlier post his caution about which direction the no came from doesn’t point to an attention-seeker to me. Cadosch has the ring of truth about him. Richardson adds weight to the suggestion that Annie died after 5pm and not before it.

            So we are pretty much left with having to say that both Richardson and Cadosch lied to accommodate a fallible TOD estimate. On balance I go with Richardson and Cadosch.
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              So he seems to be targetting you personally? Dear me, I cannot even begin to understand what that must feel like.
              Firstly Fish Iím not weeping about it. Iím just pointing out that it negates the value of any post if thatís transparently the motive. Secondly, if itís what youíre suggesting, Iíve never personally targeted you. We have certainly had heated debates that have probably gone on for too long over the same points. I simply disagree with some of your interpretations as you disagree with mine. I have never doubted your knowledge of this case or crime in general. Iíve also never doubted that you genuinely believe that Lechmere is the likeliest Suspect.

              The Baron is an entirely different kettle of fish, fishy or fisherman.
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Firstly Fish Iím not weeping about it. Iím just pointing out that it negates the value of any post if thatís transparently the motive. Secondly, if itís what youíre suggesting, Iíve never personally targeted you. We have certainly had heated debates that have probably gone on for too long over the same points. I simply disagree with some of your interpretations as you disagree with mine. I have never doubted your knowledge of this case or crime in general. Iíve also never doubted that you genuinely believe that Lechmere is the likeliest Suspect.

                The Baron is an entirely different kettle of fish, fishy or fisherman.
                Really, Herlock! I didn't say - or suggest - that you personally target me, did I? If I was to point a finger at somebody in that context, you would not be my first choice. I would instead agree with you that targeting people is not something we should ever engage in out here. The boards would be better served if it could be avoided. Being public bords, though, there is every reason to be pessimistic about that ever happening.



                Comment


                • #53
                  It's extremely improbable that John Richardson missed the rotting corpse mere feet away from him as he sat on the step. Just as it's unlikely that Albert Cadosch heard someone else say "No" and slump against the fence. Timings aside, I believe both men were honest in their testimony.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    Really, Herlock! I didn't say - or suggest - that you personally target me, did I? If I was to point a finger at somebody in that context, you would not be my first choice. I would instead agree with you that targeting people is not something we should ever engage in out here. The boards would be better served if it could be avoided. Being public bords, though, there is every reason to be pessimistic about that ever happening.


                    Fair enough Fish. My apologies for misinterpreting your post.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      It's extremely improbable that John Richardson missed the rotting corpse mere feet away from him as he sat on the step. Just as it's unlikely that Albert Cadosch heard someone else say "No" and slump against the fence. Timings aside, I believe both men were honest in their testimony.
                      Thatís certainly my impression Harry. As I said earlier, Cadosch was cautious about the word no. He felt that it came from number 29 but was quite prepared to say that he may have been mistaken and that it might have come from somewhere else. To me this doesnít smack of an attention-seeker looking for his 15 minutes. After all there was no one to contradict him if heíd simply dug his heels in and said that the no definitely came from number 29. He was certainly confident about the noise of something falling against the fence though.

                      I also think itís possible that we might have been sidetracked or put off by the gap between the no and the sound of something/someone brushing against the fence. We then ask - what was he doing between those two occurrences? - The sound might not have been Annieís body falling against the fence though. If we take the no as the point that the killer subdued and then killed her the sound of something brushing against the fence might have simply been the killerís shoulder or elbow for example as he changed positions to do what he wanted to do? Perhaps he moved Annieís left arm out of the way and it brushed against the fence? What if the killer leaned against the fence as he was standing up?

                      Nothing is certain of course but imo Cadosch appears to be a creditable witness.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Thatís certainly my impression Harry. As I said earlier, Cadosch was cautious about the word no. He felt that it came from number 29 but was quite prepared to say that he may have been mistaken and that it might have come from somewhere else. To me this doesnít smack of an attention-seeker looking for his 15 minutes. After all there was no one to contradict him if heíd simply dug his heels in and said that the no definitely came from number 29. He was certainly confident about the noise of something falling against the fence though.

                        I also think itís possible that we might have been sidetracked or put off by the gap between the no and the sound of something/someone brushing against the fence. We then ask - what was he doing between those two occurrences? - The sound might not have been Annieís body falling against the fence though. If we take the no as the point that the killer subdued and then killed her the sound of something brushing against the fence might have simply been the killerís shoulder or elbow for example as he changed positions to do what he wanted to do? Perhaps he moved Annieís left arm out of the way and it brushed against the fence? What if the killer leaned against the fence as he was standing up?

                        Nothing is certain of course but imo Cadosch appears to be a creditable witness.
                        absolutely HS
                        as does long and Richardson-timings just abit off between long and cadosch. and I agree-he probably heard the ripper bumping into the fence as her body was so close.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          It's extremely improbable that John Richardson missed the rotting corpse mere feet away from him as he sat on the step. Just as it's unlikely that Albert Cadosch heard someone else say "No" and slump against the fence. Timings aside, I believe both men were honest in their testimony.
                          And I believe Long was an attention-seeker or mistaken on the identity of the woman she saw, that Cadosch may (or may not) have heard a "no" and a thump", but not emanating from Chapman and that Richardson cannot be trusted, owing to how he changed his story. Regardless, he may have missed the body even if it WAS there - but In really don't think it was. Phillips would not have been THAT wrong.

                          The "four word" affair is too good to be true, painting the whole scenario in the sparsest of words:

                          "Will you?"

                          "Yes"

                          ... and there we have the whole scenario, allowing us to accept that a sexual deal was made.

                          Then:

                          "No!"

                          ... feeding us the "truth" about what ensued.

                          Nope. Too good. Me no buy, I'm afraid. Others do, however, so the revenues will be good at the end of the day.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            If Long was an attention-seeker, she didn't exactly have an attention-grabbing story to tell.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Likewise if Cadosch was an attention-seeker he was surprisingly willing to accept the possibility that he might have been incorrect on which side the word no came from.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                absolutely HS
                                as does long and Richardson-timings just abit off between long and cadosch. and I agree-he probably heard the ripper bumping into the fence as her body was so close.
                                Hi Abby,

                                I slightly favour Long being mistaken about seeing Annie and her killer rather than being mistaken on timings but with no great level of confidence. She might have simply got the time wrong of course but as sheíd have used that clock probably six days a week I tend toward it being less likely than that she saw a different couple. Or she could have been an attention-seeker of course.

                                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