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 Fisherman View Post

    Flawed practice? It was not flawed. It was inexact. And even today, policemen and investigators who have no thermometer will feel dead bodies for warmth.
    But I will explain to you exactly why Phillips did what he did: He felt for warmth because he knew that a warm body would give away a death close in time whereas a cold body would point to hours of death.
    It was and is a flawed practice, it is subjective in the extreme. The method does certainly not give the information you claim it does.


    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    He therefore was not trying to establish any exact temperature (so you can abandon that line of arguing here and now) - he was establishing that Chapmans body represented the cold extreme, and he cannot have mistaken a warm body for a cold one.
    It established nothing because it is subjective to the individual carrying out the procedure, that you fail to accept such is truly sad.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    It would be like mistaking your argument for a good one.
    Whereas you, have no reasoned argument at all.

    steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      We are simply going around in circles here of course. I keep posting sourced evidence from acknowledged experts in the field and Fish takes that evidence and jumps up and down on it, twists it and bends it, adds bits or leaves bits out to suit, applies weird interpretations, alters the English language and gives a Victorian Doctor skills and knowledge that he simply couldn’t have had.
      What I tend to wonder is how all of that expert advice leads you to conclusion like how we grow cold from left to right instead of from the outside and in? Which expert told you that "under the intestines" equals the back? From what esteemed expert did you procure the idea that a doctor who says that death seems to be an hour away will have identified the body he is speaking about as being cold?

      You see, for a man who is so taken with experts, it becomes a tad silly when frogs like these leap from your lips.

      Accordingly, don't try to sum up any positions - you don't understand them anyway.

      By the way, the skill and knowledge you claim that Phillips "simply couldn't have had" is the ability to tell a cold body from a warm one. That is all he had to be able to master, and I think we are on very safe ground saying that he would have mastered that with ease.

      Now I am going to work from the assumption that the rest of your post is also crap, but I DID see highlighted in red that you think (once again, nothing learned) that you can "knock on the head everything I have been saying about the magical abilities of Dr Phillips". Of course, I have never said anything at all about any magical abilities whatsoever, but let's see what you are on about this time!

      So, here goes: "Dr Taylor draws attention to the fallacious results which may arise from the customary method of judging of the degree of coldness of the body by the mere and unaided sense of touch….the surface may appear cold (though it be not really so) to a moderately warm hand; and that moreover, the condition of the hand itself may lead to an erroneous impression."

      Mmm, Taylor agrees with me: mere touch is not going to give degrees of coldness. No doctor has a thermometer built into his hands, and so it is very clear that any doctor saying 36,3 degrees must be reminded that no such certainty can be reached. He can feel that there is warmth, but he can not establish the exact degree of it.

      He then goes on to say that the surface may appear cold - and me oh my, if it is not Seddon-Smith again, who I already said that he is correct, the skin WILL grow cold quicker than the core, and so a body can feel cold to the touch the we put a hand to it. However, if there is significant heat below, the medico will pick up on it. The problem area will be the one at the furthest end of the spectre, meaning that if there is only a little warmth left in the body, that may be lost on a medico with a moderately warm hand. It is not as if Taylor is saying that NO warmth can be felt with a moderately warm hand!

      Finally, the condition of the hand itself may lead to an erroneous impression - yes, if the nerves and sensors of the hand are lacking, it is likely to produce a less useful reading. So maybe that is your best bet; that Phillips wore a prostatic hand? I´d go for that solution if I were you.

      Once again you expand the fact that temperature differences can be hard to establish by feeling for warmth into an assurance that Phillips would have been a magician if he could tell cold from warm. Once again you bring in an expert and fail to understand the implications of what he says. No doubt you will lament about how I will n ot accept the experts, but I actually DO accept them. It is your ability to put them to proper use that I find lacking in the extreme.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

        It was and is a flawed practice, it is subjective in the extreme. The method does certainly not give the information you claim it does.

        The information I claim it gives? I claim that Phillips could tell a cold body from a warm one. And the practice was never flawed. To claim that it was an exact practice would be flawed, but not even the victorians did that.

        It established nothing because it is subjective to the individual carrying out the procedure, that you fail to accept such is truly sad.

        Oh no, I fully accept that the matter hinges on Phillips´ ability to tell cold from warm. I am confidently saying that he could.

        Whereas you, have no reasoned argument at all.

        steve
        Well, I argued that you argument is not a good one because it works from the idea that a hugely experienced doctor would not be able to tell a cold body from a warm one. How is that not reasoned? Just how common do you think it was that people Phillips had declared cold to the touch and long dead arose and protested against it?

        PS. There should be no comma between you and have.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          Well, I argued that you argument is not a good one because it works from the idea that a hugely experienced doctor would not be able to tell a cold body from a warm one. How is that not reasoned? Just how common do you think it was that people Phillips had declared cold to the touch and long dead arose and protested against it?
          It is based on the view that "touch" and "warm" are Objective, when both are highly SUBJECTIVE, therefore it is not reasoned.
          The second point is utterly ridiculous.

          The issue of "warm" or "cold" bodies is pseudo-science. such is not used by forensic pathologist, that you attempt to use such, demonstrate a degree of desperation to push the TOD back towards 4am.

          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          PS. There should be no comma between you and have.
          Well I suggest you inform the developers of the "Language Tool" extension, they seem to think there should be.

          steve
          Last edited by Elamarna; 09-04-2019, 11:36 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            What I tend to wonder is how all of that expert advice leads you to conclusion like how we grow cold from left to right instead of from the outside and in? Which expert told you that "under the intestines" equals the back? From what esteemed expert did you procure the idea that a doctor who says that death seems to be an hour away will have identified the body he is speaking about as being cold?

            You see, for a man who is so taken with experts, it becomes a tad silly when frogs like these leap from your lips.

            Accordingly, don't try to sum up any positions - you don't understand them anyway.

            By the way, the skill and knowledge you claim that Phillips "simply couldn't have had" is the ability to tell a cold body from a warm one. That is all he had to be able to master, and I think we are on very safe ground saying that he would have mastered that with ease.

            Now I am going to work from the assumption that the rest of your post is also crap, but I DID see highlighted in red that you think (once again, nothing learned) that you can "knock on the head everything I have been saying about the magical abilities of Dr Phillips". Of course, I have never said anything at all about any magical abilities whatsoever, but let's see what you are on about this time!

            So, here goes: "Dr Taylor draws attention to the fallacious results which may arise from the customary method of judging of the degree of coldness of the body by the mere and unaided sense of touch….the surface may appear cold (though it be not really so) to a moderately warm hand; and that moreover, the condition of the hand itself may lead to an erroneous impression."

            Mmm, Taylor agrees with me: mere touch is not going to give degrees of coldness. No doctor has a thermometer built into his hands, and so it is very clear that any doctor saying 36,3 degrees must be reminded that no such certainty can be reached. He can feel that there is warmth, but he can not establish the exact degree of it.

            He then goes on to say that the surface may appear cold - and me oh my, if it is not Seddon-Smith again, who I already said that he is correct, the skin WILL grow cold quicker than the core, and so a body can feel cold to the touch the we put a hand to it. However, if there is significant heat below, the medico will pick up on it. The problem area will be the one at the furthest end of the spectre, meaning that if there is only a little warmth left in the body, that may be lost on a medico with a moderately warm hand. It is not as if Taylor is saying that NO warmth can be felt with a moderately warm hand!

            Finally, the condition of the hand itself may lead to an erroneous impression - yes, if the nerves and sensors of the hand are lacking, it is likely to produce a less useful reading. So maybe that is your best bet; that Phillips wore a prostatic hand? I´d go for that solution if I were you.

            Once again you expand the fact that temperature differences can be hard to establish by feeling for warmth into an assurance that Phillips would have been a magician if he could tell cold from warm. Once again you bring in an expert and fail to understand the implications of what he says. No doubt you will lament about how I will n ot accept the experts, but I actually DO accept them. It is your ability to put them to proper use that I find lacking in the extreme.
            Here we go again. My responses in blue....nonsense in black


            What I tend to wonder is how all of that expert advice leads you to conclusion like how we grow cold from left to right instead of from the outside and in?

            I've never said that or anything like it. This is from the man who complains that his own incomprehensible nonsense is being mis-stated!



            Which expert told you that "under the intestines" equals the back?

            I've never said that either. I've said that the way Dr Phillips' evidence is reported does suggest that he put his hand under the intestines. However, I also said that I don't think he would have done this but if you and everyone else believes it, that's fine by me, it doesn't change anything. That's why I've said that it's not worth arguing about. But I remind you that you were the one who said that Dr Phillips put his hand inside Chapman's body and found it to be cold. Thus misrepresenting the evidence by 100%.



            From what esteemed expert did you procure the idea that a doctor who says that death seems to be an hour away will have identified the body he is speaking about as being cold?

            I've cited you the evidence of Dr Kennedy from as long ago as 1856, given at the Surgical Society of Ireland, that a body that has been dead for an hour can be as cold as a body which has been dead for six hours. We've had Dr Seddon-Smith tell us that a body gets cold after 10-20 minutes. We've had a stream of experts saying that body temperature is an unreliable method of estimating time of death because there are so many variables. Most important of all, I've cited you Dr Alfred Swaine Taylor, the author of the leading textbook from the Victorian period who says that you cannot always FEEL the warmth (if there is warmth there).

            You craftily write about a body "being cold" but touch is subjective. Dr Phillips could not have known objectively if a body was cold. He could only go by what his hands told him and his hands can't defy the laws of physics.

            You assume that Phillips already knew that his hands would have difficulty testing for cold and you assume that he would have been able to magically take that into account and still feel cold but you produce no evidence to support these assumptions. We've already seen that Dr Taylor said that judging the degree of coldness by the "mere and unaided sense of touch" was "the customary method" during the nineteenth century. What was so special about Dr Phillips to make him immune from the serious and obvious flaw of the customary method?




            You see, for a man who is so taken with experts, it becomes a tad silly when frogs like these leap from your lips

            You think that being "so taken by experts", is a criticism????!!!! Unbelievable talk coming from someone who thinks he knows better than every single expert that has ever spoken or written on the subject. From a man who can't cite one single expert to support the nonsense he feels it appropriate to make up and then post on an internet forum, all to frame a man from the nineteenth century for a murder he almost certainly did not commit.



            By the way, the skill and knowledge you claim that Phillips "simply couldn't have had" is the ability to tell a cold body from a warm one.

            Yes, that’s right Fisherman. He couldn't do this without a thermometer. Don't you get it? That's the only way to tell whether a dead body actually is "cold" or "warm". You can't do it by touch. When we're talking about a matter of a few degrees on the surface between "cold" and "warm" no man alive can accurately assess whether a body is truly "cold" or not. But, as Dr Seddon-Smith said, "Although there is residual warmth, the body feels cold quite quickly". What is it about "quite quickly" don't you understand? Do you think that means "over two hours"????



            Of course, I have never said anything at all about any magical abilities whatsoever,

            Yes you have. By way of example, you keep saying that Dr Phillips had the ability to assess the warmth in the core of a dead body just from feeling the surface. Barking nonsense.



            Mmm, Taylor agrees with me: mere touch is not going to give degrees of coldness.

            No he doesn't because, after he refers to "the degree of coldness" (by which he doesn't mean the exact degree on the thermometer!), he goes on to say "the surface may appear cold (though it be not really so)". See that Fisherman? That's as stark as it gets. It either appears "cold" or it doesn't. And he's saying that you can't judge it by hand. What did Phillips do? He attempted to judge whether Chapman was cold or not by hand! So he was attempting the impossible. And then, from a result of "cold" he went on to do what was also impossible by estimating a time of death (of 2 hours or more). Something for which there was, and remains, no scientific basis. In other words, there was just as much scientific basis for saying she had been dead for 1 hour on the basis of feeling cold as 2 hours or 3 hours, i.e. none!



            However, if there is significant heat below, the medico will pick up on it.

            What on earth does "significant heat below" mean? It's pure nonsense. Significant in what sense? And below what? Below the surface of the insulated skin? In the core? To be clear, you are saying that one would expect Chapman, lying out in the open on a cold night, to have "significant heat" that could be felt on the surface of the skin one whole hour after she had died? Where is your source please? Oh sorry, I'd forgotten, you are making it all up.



            It is not as if Taylor is saying that NO warmth can be felt with a moderately warm hand!

            Erm, yes he is. That's exactly what "the surface may appear cold" means. Or do you now think that cold means warm?



            Once again you expand the fact that temperature differences can be hard to establish by feeling for warmth into an assurance that Phillips would have been a magician if he could tell cold from warm

            The magic is threefold. Firstly that he can feel "underlying warmth" from the core when, in reality, the skin is insulated from the core. Secondly, that, on a body which has rapidly lost heat within a short time after death, he is able to overcome the insurmountable problem identified by Dr Taylor that a cooling but still relatively warm body surface may appear cold to a living human hand. Thirdly, that he is able to make a mental calculation to estimate time of death, taking into account all the possible variables that can affect body cooling, simply because of a dead body feeling cold, when, as every single expert in forensic pathology agrees, there is literally no scientific basis to make such a calculation. If he's producing an estimate which isn't based on science then it must be magic.



            Fish your position is now so blatantly untenable that it’s becoming embarrassing to have to keep dismissing your posts. As I have....every single on of them.

            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


            • I cant for the life of me imagine why a discussion that includes Annie being dead for hours before being found is still being entertained. Cadosche said he had heard things from the yard of 29 before, he said he thought the cry and thud he heard was again from that yard, and that is almost empirical evidence that someone was alive in that yard at 5:20am. Since she is found before 6am, there is only the slimest chance in hell that she dies before 5:00am. Richardson didn't miss seeing a dead body by the bottom step...people need to grow a pair here and take a stand when its warranted.
              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-04-2019, 03:19 PM.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                I cant for the life of me imagine why a discussion that includes Annie being dead for hours before being found is still being entertained. Cadosche said he had heard things from the yard of 29 before, he said he thought the cry and thud he heard was again from that yard, and that is almost empirical evidence that someone was alive in that yard at 5:20am. Since she is found before 6am, there is only the slimest chance in hell that she dies before 5:00am. Richardson didn't miss seeing a dead body by the bottom step...people need to grow a pair here and take a stand when its warranted.
                It beggars belief Michael. You wouldn’t credit the effort that has been expounded to try and discredit Cadosch and Richardson whilst at the same time trying to suggest that Dr Phillips had magical temperature gauging hands and other powers that he couldn’t have possessed. Or that the entirety of Forensic medical authority was wrong to tell us that the methods that he’d employed were unreliable and ripe for error. And surprise, surprise of the four people in the pro-Phillips camp three of them actually need an earlier TOD to support theories (the other one would disagree with me if I said that Queen Victoria 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


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  I cant for the life of me imagine why a discussion that includes Annie being dead for hours before being found is still being entertained. Cadosche said he had heard things from the yard of 29 before, he said he thought the cry and thud he heard was again from that yard, and that is almost empirical evidence that someone was alive in that yard at 5:20am. Since she is found before 6am, there is only the slimest chance in hell that she dies before 5:00am. Richardson didn't miss seeing a dead body by the bottom step...people need to grow a pair here and take a stand when its warranted.
                  Cadosch ?!

                  From Wiki

                  " On 26th April 1893, at St Andrew's Roman Catholic Church in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a man by the name of Albert Cadosch, a hawker, who claimed to be a 23-year-old bachelor, married Elizabeth Stobart. This man's stated age is a decade younger than the Albert Cadosch who gave evidence at the Chapman inquest would have been, but the name of the bridegroom's father is revealing: "Paul Cadosch - deceased". Occupation: "Glass & China Merchant". It would be difficult to argue, age discrepancy notwithstanding, that this was not the same man. Alice Cadosch still considered herself to be married and no record of any divorce has been located. Albert Cadosch seems to have left his home, wife, family and business, moved to the North of England and entered into a bigamous marriage "



                  Is that the same person who you want us to believe ?!

                  No thank you, not tonight, but don't worry, you will have a good company.



                  The Baron

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Well, I argued that you argument is not a good one because it works from the idea that a hugely experienced doctor would not be able to tell a cold body from a warm one. How is that not reasoned? Just how common do you think it was that people Phillips had declared cold to the touch and long dead arose and protested against it?
                    I take a different view. I accept that Phillips' evidence about his examination of Annie Chapman is accurate from his perspective. However, his interpretation of the results of his examination goes beyond that which can reasonably be expected with regard to the time of death estimate he made. I do not doubt for a second that he could recognise a dead body and that body had colder skin than a live body.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                      Cadosch ?!

                      From Wiki

                      " On 26th April 1893, at St Andrew's Roman Catholic Church in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a man by the name of Albert Cadosch, a hawker, who claimed to be a 23-year-old bachelor, married Elizabeth Stobart. This man's stated age is a decade younger than the Albert Cadosch who gave evidence at the Chapman inquest would have been, but the name of the bridegroom's father is revealing: "Paul Cadosch - deceased". Occupation: "Glass & China Merchant". It would be difficult to argue, age discrepancy notwithstanding, that this was not the same man. Alice Cadosch still considered herself to be married and no record of any divorce has been located. Albert Cadosch seems to have left his home, wife, family and business, moved to the North of England and entered into a bigamous marriage "



                      Is that the same person who you want us to believe ?!

                      No thank you, not tonight, but don't worry, you will have a good company.



                      The Baron
                      Note my emboldened part, and also that leaving someones family has absolutely nothing to do with giving accurate statements about a murder to the police. Nice you feel Wiki is a defacto source for accuracy...no matter how delusional that is.

                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        It beggars belief Michael. You wouldn’t credit the effort that has been expounded to try and discredit Cadosch and Richardson whilst at the same time trying to suggest that Dr Phillips had magical temperature gauging hands and other powers that he couldn’t have possessed. Or that the entirety of Forensic medical authority was wrong to tell us that the methods that he’d employed were unreliable and ripe for error. And surprise, surprise of the four people in the pro-Phillips camp three of them actually need an earlier TOD to support theories (the other one would disagree with me if I said that Queen Victoria was a woman!)
                        Herlock, a few problems I have about posters here is that they refuse to accept what contradicts their own belief system, and that they are too often without spines when it comes to taking a stand on something. If being "intellectual" means sitting on an eternal fence despite the bleeding obvious facts, then Im happy to count myself outside that group.

                        The leading waffle topics..the real value of Israel Schwartz all the while knowing he wasn't part of any Inquest..(people use his statements all the time just disregarding that little fact), taking Long over Cadosche when he was in the next bloody yard, or not being sure if Richardson could see a dead woman at his feet, or using Lawende as a star witness when he says himself 10 days after the fact that he couldn't identify anyone at that point,....using Hutchinson, when its obvious by the fact he comes in 4 days late that he is no "friend" of Mary Kellys...so at least 1 lie, and many fanciful suspect details in the dark,...saying Kate wouldn't blackmail someone when she stated to a friend she was ready to squeal on someone she knew for money, using the fact the women were out at night to suggest all were actively soliciting when they meet their killer..something only known about 2 of the five Canonical victims....this list could go on and on.

                        The policy....when faced with overwhelming data leasding to a logical conclusion that is in opposition to my own guesses, simply place head in sand and hold breath.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-04-2019, 08:05 PM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • I cant for the life of me imagine why a discussion that includes Annie being dead for hours before being found is still being entertained. Cadosche said he had heard things from the yard of 29 before, he said he thought the cry and thud he heard was again from that yard, and that is almost empirical evidence that someone was alive in that yard at 5:20am. Since she is found before 6am, there is only the slimest chance in hell that she dies before 5:00am. Richardson didn't miss seeing a dead body by the bottom step...people need to grow a pair here and take a stand when its warranted.
                          It still amazes me, and i cant for the life of me understand why posters get this part soooooo wrong.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                            Cadosch ?!

                            From Wiki

                            " On 26th April 1893, at St Andrew's Roman Catholic Church in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a man by the name of Albert Cadosch, a hawker, who claimed to be a 23-year-old bachelor, married Elizabeth Stobart. This man's stated age is a decade younger than the Albert Cadosch who gave evidence at the Chapman inquest would have been, but the name of the bridegroom's father is revealing: "Paul Cadosch - deceased". Occupation: "Glass & China Merchant". It would be difficult to argue, age discrepancy notwithstanding, that this was not the same man. Alice Cadosch still considered herself to be married and no record of any divorce has been located. Albert Cadosch seems to have left his home, wife, family and business, moved to the North of England and entered into a bigamous marriage "



                            Is that the same person who you want us to believe ?!

                            No thank you, not tonight, but don't worry, you will have a good company.



                            The Baron
                            Here we have the issue of accepting Wiki, as if it is flawless, serious researchers' know it is not.
                            While the comment may be true, a proper source should be also be given, if that source is on the wiki page, simply provide the link.


                            steve

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                              Cadosch ?!

                              From Wiki

                              " On 26th April 1893, at St Andrew's Roman Catholic Church in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a man by the name of Albert Cadosch, a hawker, who claimed to be a 23-year-old bachelor, married Elizabeth Stobart. This man's stated age is a decade younger than the Albert Cadosch who gave evidence at the Chapman inquest would have been, but the name of the bridegroom's father is revealing: "Paul Cadosch - deceased". Occupation: "Glass & China Merchant". It would be difficult to argue, age discrepancy notwithstanding, that this was not the same man. Alice Cadosch still considered herself to be married and no record of any divorce has been located. Albert Cadosch seems to have left his home, wife, family and business, moved to the North of England and entered into a bigamous marriage "



                              Is that the same person who you want us to believe ?!

                              No thank you, not tonight, but don't worry, you will have a good company.



                              The Baron
                              Well you’ve done it again Baron. Just when I think that you can’t make a more nonsensical post you go and do it.

                              What planet do you inhabit? Every single human being that has ever lived has told a lie or done something wrong. And not just once. And so for you, because it’s convenient, you think that this proves that Cadosch must have been lying about what he heard.

                              Talking of good company I’ll challenge you to do something. Find me a single human being anywhere, of any description, who agrees with your post.

                              What if we discovered that Dr Phillips had cheated on his wife? Would you dismiss what he said on those grounds?

                              Why do you keep embarrassing yourself with these posts?
                              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

                                It still amazes me, and i cant for the life of me understand why posters get this part soooooo wrong.
                                You do earliest that Michael is disagreeing with you Fishy?

                                Ill tell you why you’re having such a problem with this Fishy.

                                First.....instead of simply following where the evidence leads you are starting out with a proposition and working from there. You are starting out from a point of.....Chapman was killed elsewhere in a carriage by Sir William Gull and so she must have been killed much earlier whilst it was still dark. You cannot accept anything that doesn’t accommodate this scenario. There is a word for this Fishy. It’s called bias.

                                Second.....you simply cannot be reading and considering properly the Mount Everest of evidence from the real authorities on the subject. Authors of the standard textbooks on the subjects. People that today’s experts look to for guidance. You dismiss all of these to support Fisherman’s interpretation. Another poster who happens to require an earlier TOD.

                                And so what we have is simply this. Every single authority on the subject tells us what I’ve been telling you for months and you have been ignorantly mocking me for it. That none of the methods that Phillips used were reliable. Indeed experts, like Jason Payne-James for example, tell us that these methods should not be used. I’ve provided expert after expert, sourced quote after sourced quote, and every single one of them backs up what I’ve said 100%. How the hell can you or Fish or anyone have the arrogance to say that you know better than them?

                                And then, to top it off and as if your point couldn’t have been weaker, we have witnesses who all contradict Phillips. And so you, Fish and The Baron resort to the most embarrassingly desperate stuff to discredit them.

                                There can now be almost no doubt (very little is impossible of course) that Phillips was indeed wrong in his TOD and that Annie Chapman met her death after 5.20 am. I think that it’s as close to a certainty as we can get.
                                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