Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    See Barons 693 post and read it out loud .
    Do you mean without laughing?

    Relying on Baron is the absolute definition of desperation.

    You are biased beyond hope. You need Phillips to be correct. He wasn’t. Sorry.
    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

      Its a fact that its mine and Fishermans opinion , cant you understand that ?
      The science is fact. It’s says that Phillips can be dismissed. Very, very simple.
      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


        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.
        Fishy, your attempt at being clever is an exercise in futility.

        As Cadosch himself wasn’t certain that the ‘’’no’’’ came from number 29th I cannot be certain either as I wasn’t there. As no one else was around as far as we know and a murder certainly took place there has to be a realistic chance that it was Chapman. The noise against the fence is far stronger because Cadosch himself was certain 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


        • Originally posted by DJA View Post

          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
          Perhaps you weren’t aware Dave, The Baron, Fish and Fishy are all authorities on Forensic medicine and so we can disregard the entirety of the thinking and the literature on the subject. Hope that clears things up.

          We might look forward to their upcoming joint speech to The British Academy Of Forensic Science. It’s entitled The Use Of Wizardry And Magic By Victorian Doctors.

          Standing room only.
          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


          • Fishy, your attempt at being clever is an exercise in futility.

            As Cadosch himself wasn’t certain that the ‘’’no’’’ came from number 29th I cannot be certain either as I wasn’t there. As no one else was around as far as we know and a murder certainly took place there has to be a realistic chance that it was Chapman. The noise against the fence is far stronger because Cadosch himself was certain that this came from number 29.
            So let the record show that because the ''NO'' coming from number 29 Hanbury st cannot be proven to be that of Annie Chapman ,according to Albert Codosch at 5.22. Then its not a ''FACT'' that HER AND HER KILLER were in the yard at that time, , there by opening any and all possibilities to other ways and means to her murder . Case closed thankyou Herlock you just proved my point .

            Comment


            • Now the thud of the supposed body of Chapman hitting the fence at 5.26 could also irreverent could it not.

              Comment


              • Of all the people in the whole investigation, the fewest have done more damage to the case than Long, Cadosch, Richardson and Baxter.
                Suddenly this looks more like being correct .

                Comment


                • I have decided not to care much about Herlock Sholmes´unsavoury attacks on me anymore. After all, if it had not been for him, I would not have found Henssge´s estimation for TOD. Now that we can use it, we have arrived at the logical end station. We won't get any further than this.

                  Henssge´s method is the one generally used all over the world when a police force wants to try and establish as close a TOD as possible. Herlock of course says that it builds on rectal temperature, and it does, but since we know that Phillips said the body was cold, we can easily work from a temperature that would have been reached after four hours at the earliest, because that is when the body begins to feel cold to the touch - medicos can normally feel warmth in the body for the first three hours. And we know by now that the method gives a result of Chapman having been dead four hours if we work from the Celsius scale and three hours if we work from the Fahrenhait scale (I haven't seen whether anybody has been able to clarify what applies on that score, but overall, it is not all that interesting since both Celsius and Fahrenheit will take us up to amounts of time that are not consistent with death having occurred only an hour before.

                  There are correcting factors that can be added, but we all know by now that there are factors that speak for a longer AND a shorter time, and so we can look away from them. If applied, they would not move the final outcome very much anyway.

                  So this is as safe a tool as we can use (who is that person yelling and crying hysterically?) to get as close as we possibly can using the best method science has to offer. And it takes us to a time of death around 2.30-3.30, the shorter time if we use Fahrenheit, the longer if we use Celsius.

                  After this, we can shout as much as we want about how Chapman May have deviated. The thing is, we have to shave between 66,6 and 75 per cent off the times reached to make her fit the one hour Long/Cadosch ideas.

                  I think I said it from the outset? Phillips may have been wrong to an extent, but there is no chance at all that he is THAT wrong.

                  Now we can confidently say that we actually know.

                  And thank you for encouraging me to find it, Herlock!
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 08-31-2019, 01:16 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    So let the record show that because the ''NO'' coming from number 29 Hanbury st cannot be proven to be that of Annie Chapman ,according to Albert Codosch at 5.22. Then its not a ''FACT'' that HER AND HER KILLER were in the yard at that time, , there by opening any and all possibilities to other ways and means to her murder . Case closed thankyou Herlock you just proved my point .
                    How can our even hope for this to pass off as logic. It’s embarrassing Fishy.

                    No one has ever said that a witness statement has to be considered a fact. We weigh up the likelihood’s. The likelihood of Richardson missing a mutilated corpse had it been there is extremely low to non-existent. The likelihood of there being a noise coming from the yard of number 29 and it wasn’t connected to the case is extremely low to non-existent.

                    Fishy its not physically impossible that Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper but most don't consider it a serious possibility. It’s not impossible Elizabeth Long killed Annie. Many things are not impossible which for you leaves a tiny crack in the door to allow in any kind of ludicrous theory.

                    Why do you trust that Phillips was magically correct with his TOD estimate but completely wrong when he stated categorically that Annie died in that yard?
                    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


                    • Anybody interested in reading up on Henssge and how his method was developed in 1988 should have a look at this link to the book "Human body decomposition". It makes for very interesting reading:
                      https://books.google.se/books?id=q8O...method&f=false

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        I have decided not to care much about Herlock Sholmes´unsavoury attacks on me anymore. After all, if it had not been for him, I would not have found Henssge´s estimation for TOD. Now that we can use it, we have arrived at the logical end station.

                        Henssge´s method is the one generally used all over the world when a police force wants to try and establish as close a TOD as possible. Herlock of course says that it builds on rectal temperature, and it does, but since we know that Phillips said the body was cold, we can easily work from a temperature that would have been reached after four hours at the earliest, because that is when the body begins to feel cold to the touch - medicos can normally feel warmth in the body for the first three hours. And we know by now that the method gives a result of Chapman having been dead four hours if we work from the Celsius scale and three hours if we work from the Fahrenhait scale (I haven't seen whether anybody has been able to clarify what applies on that score, but overall, it is not all that interesting since both Celsius and Fahrenheit will take us up to amounts of time that are not consistent with death having occurred only an hour before.

                        There are correcting factors that can be added, but we all know by now that there are factors that speak for a longer AND a shorter time, and so we can look away from them. If applied, they would not move the final outcome very much anyway.

                        So this is as safe a tool as we can use (who is that person yelling and crying hysterically?) to get as close as we possibly can using the best method science has to offer. And it takes us to a time of death around 2.30-3.30, the shorter time if we use Fahrenheit, the longer if we use Celsius.

                        After this, we can shout as much as we want about how Chapman May have deviated. The thing is, we have to shave between 66,6 and 75 per cent off the times reached to make her fit the one hour Long/Cadosch ideas.

                        I think I said it from the outset? Phillips may have been wrong to an extent, but there is no chance at all that he is THAT wrong.

                        Now we can confidently say that we actually know.

                        And thank you for encouraging me to find it, Herlock!
                        I love the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of your post. It’s ok for you to insult and belittle but when someone stands up to you you bleat like a baby. Check every single Lechmere thread for evidence of this,

                        This argument is over. Only someone hopelessly biased could continue. Pure desperation. Rigor, Algor and digestion are all unreliable. The evidence for this is a Mount Everest but you persist in twisting, misquoting and misinterpreting.

                        Phillips TOD can safely be dismissed. The witnesses cannot. I’m not interested in anything you say. I’ll go with Simpson, Knight, Payne-Janes et al who all, along with others, tell you that you are utterly, hopelessly and embarrassingly wrong.

                        Again. Chapman died at around 5.25. That’s why she wasn’t there when John Richardson saw the whole of the yard.
                        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

                          So let the record show that because the ''NO'' coming from number 29 Hanbury st cannot be proven to be that of Annie Chapman ,according to Albert Codosch at 5.22. Then its not a ''FACT'' that HER AND HER KILLER were in the yard at that time, , there by opening any and all possibilities to other ways and means to her murder . Case closed thankyou Herlock you just proved my point .
                          Yup. Long and Cadosch are ruled out. They cannot possibly have made observations of the killer. If Chapman was cold at 6.30, then that is an absolute certainty.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            I love the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of your post. It’s ok for you to insult and belittle but when someone stands up to you you bleat like a baby. Check every single Lechmere thread for evidence of this,

                            This argument is over. Only someone hopelessly biased could continue. Pure desperation. Rigor, Algor and digestion are all unreliable. The evidence for this is a Mount Everest but you persist in twisting, misquoting and misinterpreting.

                            Phillips TOD can safely be dismissed. The witnesses cannot. I’m not interested in anything you say. I’ll go with Simpson, Knight, Payne-Janes et al who all, along with others, tell you that you are utterly, hopelessly and embarrassingly wrong.

                            Again. Chapman died at around 5.25. That’s why she wasn’t there when John Richardson saw the whole of the yard.
                            Bleat? I couldn't be happier. The very comprehensive Henssge method rules out that Phillips was as wrong as you will have it. He may have been wrong to an extent, but just as I have said throughout, not THAT wrong.

                            Choosing some scientists over Henssge cannot be done, because they will and can not say anything that is not in line with what he says. Simpson, Knight, Payne-James et al will use the Henssge method themselves. Your "interpretations" of what they say must stand for you only.

                            Where did you get that line from? "When somebody stands up to you you bleat like a baby?" I stand up to anybody where I feel there is a need to. Do you think you have made me scared or feeling inferior by "standing up to me", Herlock...? I eat people like you for breakfast, chew them up and spit them out. Of course, the taste of it may make me produce a bleating sound: Uuuuugh!, sort of.

                            Now join the party and cork up the champagne. We have a result. And nobody celebrating will take much notice of you sitting in a corner, repeating "5.25, 5.25, 5.25... Idiots!"

                            Science prevailed in the end, just as you wished for, even though you could not work out what science is.

                            Now you can keep up your insults, and I will keep up Henssge, and we can let people decide for themselves which is the clever thing to do.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Phillips TOD can safely be dismissed. The witnesses cannot.
                              You do realize that these sentences taken together mean that the witnesses CANNOT have been wrong or lying?

                              Wow. What a whopper! I wasn't aware that you were that desperate!

                              I will leave you to it. Try and get out and catch some fresh air and get a bite to eat every now and then, Herlock.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Yup. Long and Cadosch are ruled out. They cannot possibly have made observations of the killer. If Chapman was cold at 6.30, then that is an absolute certainty.
                                Wrong of course.
                                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