Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Seeings how were getting nowhere when t.o.d is concerned, lets try something new shall we , how about some simple yes or no . 1 Yes or No, it was Annie Chapman that Albert Codosch heard say NO?...... anyone? pisssssssttttt Herlock ? Remembering a yes answer also means its agreed that the time was 5.22 am [ allowing 2 mins at the privy , fair and reasonable ?]

    Albert Codosch''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.'' So agreed .... anyone ? yes/no .

    4 mins later at 5.26am it was Annie Chapman the Albert Codosch heard fall against the fence AlbertCodosch'' 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''. YES/NO. ?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DJA View Post

      Given that TB had reached her brain, her temperature could have been as low as 32C when alive, and given some the impression she was intoxicated.
      Wrong on all aspects.

      May I suggest that you read about the subject before you post next time, you and others are making more damage to this case with such full of errors posts than anyone else.



      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

        Yes Herlock ,your facts not'' THE'' facts.. Biggggg difference .
        Yes Fishy, its their facts and no ones else:

        Cadosch heared a voice, they turn this to: Cadosch heared Chapman's voice at 5:30 and listed this as a Fact.

        Long saw a couple, was sure the woman was Chapman, she admitted she didn't give much notice to them, but they didn't care and turn this to: Long saw Chapman at 5:30 and listed this as a Fact

        Richardson didn't saw the body, he didn't enter the yard, he didn't look behind the door, he changed his story, but they didn't care and turn this to Chapman was not there because Richardson didn't see her and listed this as a fact.


        These are the facts that we have to accept and throw Phillips opinion and examination and experience out of the window because they are of no value.


        They wont admit it Fishy, they made their minds long before this discussion took place.

        It is too late for them now.



        The Baron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

          Wrong on all aspects.

          May I suggest that you read about the subject before you post next time, you and others are making more damage to this case with such full of errors posts than anyone else.



          The Baron
          Meh!

          Take it up with Journal of Neurology,Neurosurgery and Psychiatry,1981,44,255-257 as published in BMJ.

          The report was "Chronic hypothermia following tuberculous meningitis" by DJ Dick,GL Sanders,M Sanders and MD Rawlins.

          Chapman's stiffness could have been due to Pott's Disease.

          Eat my shorts

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

            Wrong on all aspects.

            May I suggest that you read about the subject before you post next time, you and others are making more damage to this case with such full of errors posts than anyone else.

            The Baron
            That is good advice, advice you would do well to follow.

            Comment


            • 6
              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              This one sentence fisherman sums up the Chapman murder perfectly, what a great pity it is that obviously intelligent people cant see past it . And at the very least accept that the murder'' COULD'' have happen earlier and not at the HIGHLY UNLIKELY time of 5.25 TO 5.40am . Sad really.
              Fishy, you simply cannot have read this thread properly. Itís impossible. You have just read Fishís gloating comments and chosen to believe him because you need him to be correct to fit the theory that you support. The evidence is overwhelmingly against Phillips. It couldnít have been more amply demonstrated. Expert after expert and not one of them supports Fisherman. Not one!

              You have read the quotes from such eminent authorities as Sir Keith Simpson, Sir Bernard Knight and even Jason Payne-James (who appeared in Fishermanís Lechmere documentary) Pages and pages of expertise from the top minds on the subject and they all say the same thing.

              Rigor Mortis is an unreliable method of estimation TOD and, as Payne-James stressed, should not be used. And all of the known criteria that could hasten the onset of rigor were present in the case of Annie Chapman. Under-nourished - check. Wasting disease - check. Sudden haemorrhage - check. Excessive blood loss - check.

              Likewise Algor Mortis and digestion. These are unreliable methods. Experts tell us this. Why should you ignore them because they are inconvenient? We have to be open-minded and honest and go with the authorities on the subject and not simply assume that Phillips had some kind of superpower. Do you really, honestly believe that Phillips could make an accurate assessment of TOD by temperature simply by touching Annieís body with the back of his hand? He was a doctor and not Gandalf! Even with a thermometer he couldnít have been totally accurate but by touch....not a chance apart from by luck. These are facts Fishy.

              You simply cannot be reading the facts. Iím afraid that you and The Baron are simply reading Fishís boasts at the end of his posts and saying to yourselves ďhe must be winning the argument.Ē

              Fish lost this argument before it began. Only those that desperately need an earlier TOD believe Phillips. And, as I said earlier.....do any of s think thatís a coincidence?
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                Yes Herlock ,your facts not'' THE'' facts.. Biggggg difference .
                Not my facts. The facts of the acknowledged experts on the subject. Mine and Fishís opinions are worthless. Itís the experts that count and every single one without exception is against Phillips.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                Comment


                • Of all the people in the whole investigation, the fewest have done more damage to the case than Long, Cadosch, Richardson and Baxter.

                  Herlock, i dont care if if the Queen of England herself said this. Its 100 per cent correct, thats all there is to it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                    Seeings how were getting nowhere when t.o.d is concerned, lets try something new shall we , how about some simple yes or no . 1 Yes or No, it was Annie Chapman that Albert Codosch heard say NO?...... anyone? pisssssssttttt Herlock ? Remembering a yes answer also means its agreed that the time was 5.22 am [ allowing 2 mins at the privy , fair and reasonable ?]

                    Albert Codosch''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.'' So agreed .... anyone ? yes/no .

                    4 mins later at 5.26am it was Annie Chapman the Albert Codosch heard fall against the fence AlbertCodosch'' 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''. YES/NO. ?
                    Iím not going with your diversionary tactic Fishy. We have gotten somewhere with the TOD estimate. Phillips estimates, according to the entirety of Forensic science, cannot be relied upon. This is proven beyond doubt. The only way that Phillips could have gotten it right was by sheer luck. So we can entirely dismiss Phillips.


                    On the subject of witnesses. As we have told you before Fishy, but if I remember correctly you are not keen on accepting it, timings cannot always be exact amongst working class people as very few of them would have owned watches. When Dr Phillips said that he arrived at the scene at 6.30 we have reason to trust him. He would definitely have owned a watch. And so 5.22 might have been 5.25 or 5.18. We canít be certain but of course itís unlikely that heíd have been way out. He might have been accurate too of course. So around 5.22 is reasonable. We donít know if he heard Annie because he qualified his statement. He was cautious and admitted that he might have been wrong. Caution is a point in his favour. No one could have contradicted him so he could have easily said that heíd definitely heard a woman say no from number 29.

                    Again approximately 5.26 he heard something against the fence. He was confident that this came from number 29.

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                    Comment


                    • Not my facts. The facts of the acknowledged experts on the subject. Mine and Fishís opinions are worthless. Itís the experts that count and every single one without exception is against Phillips.
                      See Barons 693 post and read it out loud .

                      Comment


                      • Iím not going with your diversionary tactic Fishy. We have gotten somewhere with the TOD estimate. Phillips estimates, according to the entirety of Forensic science, cannot be relied upon. This is proven beyond doubt. The only way that Phillips could have gotten it right was by sheer luck. So we can entirely dismiss Phillips.
                        On the subject of witnesses. As we have told you before Fishy, but if I remember correctly you are not keen on accepting it, timings cannot always be exact amongst working class people as very few of them would have owned watches. When Dr Phillips said that he arrived at the scene at 6.30 we have reason to trust him. He would definitely have owned a watch. And so 5.22 might have been 5.25 or 5.18. We canít be certain but of course itís unlikely that heíd have been way out. He might have been accurate too of course. So around 5.22 is reasonable. We donít know if he heard Annie because he qualified his statement. He was cautious and admitted that he might have been wrong. Caution is a point in his favour. No one could have contradicted him so he could have easily said that heíd definitely heard a woman say no from number 29.

                        Again approximately 5.26 he heard something against the fence. He was confident that this came from number 29.

                        Sorry Herlock that just wont do , your whole argument on Chapman being murdered at 5.30am hinges on codosch being correct in having Chapman and the killer in the yard at 5.20am .

                        So, once again in your opinion was it Chapman codosch heard say ''NO''....... yes or no . Time is not the important factor at this stage.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                          Herlock, i dont care if if the Queen of England herself said this. Its 100 per cent correct, thats all there is to it.
                          You are yet again stating opinion as fact. Why canít you understand this?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                            Wrong on all aspects.

                            May I suggest that you read about the subject before you post next time, you and others are making more damage to this case with such full of errors posts than anyone else.



                            The Baron
                            Every single post that youíve ever made on the subject damages the case and is an affront to reason and logic.

                            If you had read on the subject you would not dismiss every single Forensic expert in the world for the last 100 years?

                            Get this into your head :

                            Every single expert......every single, without fail, one....tells us that Rigor Mortis, Algor Mortis and digestion are unreliable and should not be used to estimate TOD. You are assuming that Phillips was a magician and not a Doctor.

                            And yet you, Fish, Fishy and PS who, Iím assuming are not leading authorities on Forensics, decide to dismiss those that are. Itís dishonest.

                            And isnít it a coincidence that Fish, Fishy and PS all need an earlier TOD. And you yourself would disagree with me if I told you that Annie Chapman was a woman!
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • You are yet again stating opinion as fact. Why canít you understand this?
                              Its a fact that its mine and Fishermans opinion , cant you understand that ?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                                Yes Fishy, its their facts and no ones else:

                                Theres no such thing as my facts or your facts. They are either facts or not. The forensic evidence that Phillips results werenít reliable are facts.

                                Cadosch heared a voice, they turn this to: Cadosch heared Chapman's voice at 5:30 and listed this as a Fact.

                                Point me to the post where Iíve said that this was a fact or shut up.

                                Long saw a couple, was sure the woman was Chapman, she admitted she didn't give much notice to them, but they didn't care and turn this to: Long saw Chapman at 5:30 and listed this as a Fact

                                Point me to the post where Iíve said that this was a fact or shut up.

                                Richardson didn't saw the body, he didn't enter the yard, he didn't look behind the door, he changed his story, but they didn't care and turn this to Chapman was not there because Richardson didn't see her and listed this as a fact.

                                To say that Richardson didnít Ďseeí the body (not saw) is to dishonestly post opinion as fact. The fact that he possibly didnít mention this first is irrelevant. If he just told Chandler in his brief conversation that the body wasnít there why did he particularly need to go into detail? Perhaps he was simply reluctant to place himself in that yard with a knife for obvious reasons. At the Inquest, under oath, he said that he sat on the step and couldnít possibly have missed a horribly mutilated corpse. The evidence is in favour of Chapman not being there.

                                These are the facts that we have to accept and throw Phillips opinion and examination and experience out of the window because they are of no value.

                                Staggering. Thereís no other word for it. You deliberately get everything backward to suit your own argument. For the one millionth time Forensic scientists experts, EXPERTS, tell us that Phillips estimates cannot be trusted. Tell my why you know better than Sir Keith Simpson for example...Iíd be interested to hear your wisdom on the matter. And so would the Forensic Science community no doubt.

                                They wont admit it Fishy, they made their minds long before this discussion took place.

                                It is too late for them now.

                                Youíre wasting everyoneís time.....no change there.


                                The Baron
                                Everything that youíve said above is demonstrably false. Pure dishonesty.

                                Again.....no change there.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X