Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • 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.
    I asked you a question awhile ago Fishy. Do you honestly believe believe everything that Dr Phillips said?
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

      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
      Why bother reading it in Wiki when you can read it here on this site?!

      As if a link would change others mind..

      I said why I don't accept him as a reliable witness, not to convince anyone.



      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Itís amazing that every single authority on the subject of Forensic medicine can be casually discarded and a witness ca now be discarded on the strength of Wikipedia and the fact that he might once have told a lie.....shock horror.

        Welcome Steve. Youíve moved from Buckís Row to the rabbit-hole.

        It is realy funny how you and others arguing for trustful sources, and at the same time want us to believe a charlatan over an experienced doctor.

        This happen often when one rush to post anything, thinking he is handling the argument, without giving a second thought.



        The Baron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


          It is realy funny how you and others arguing for trustful sources, and at the same time want us to believe a charlatan over an experienced doctor.

          This happen often when one rush to post anything, thinking he is handling the argument, without giving a second thought.



          The Baron
          First.

          Whatever might or might not have happened in Cadoschís past is irrelevant. Iíll ask you again, if someone once told a lie, as every single human being has done, does that mean that you should never trust anything they ever say again. The idea is preposterous. You would never trust a single person to ever be capable of telling the truth.

          Second.

          One possible lie does not qualify someone as a charlatan!

          Third.

          We are talking about the evidence of every single authority on the subject of Forensic medicine. Maybe you can find out that Jason Payne-James once lied to his mother about whether heíd really done his homework? Then you can dismiss him as a charlatan.


          Is this really be the best that you can do Baron?

          Sadly it probably is.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • 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. ?

            So we have 4 mins between the ''NO'' and the ''NOISE'' of something hitting the fence yes /no ?. ill answer for you Herlock . hmmmmm yes fishy . YES that sounds fair and reasonable.

            Lets see then , the killer and Chapman enter 29 Handbury st at 5.20, she thinking his a willing client and ready for the act , he intent on one thing, murder and mutilation . Why/what then did Chapman say NO for ? Surely its was the sudden lunge forward where the killer puts his hands around her neck to start strangling her rendering her unconscious causing death .[ Dr Phillips official cause of death ] OR did she have her back to him where he grabs her from behind and then strangled her from that position?[ unlikely] but either way Chapman is dead inside of 30 to 45 seconds , fair and reasonable ?[ likely] agree/ disagree ? Anyone.

            IF CODOSCH RETURNED 4 MINS AFTER HEARING THE ''NO'', AND UPON RETURNING A SECOND TIME [2 MORE MINS] THAT MEANS THE KILLER WAS EITHER HOLDING CHAPMAN UPRIGHT FOR 5 MINUTES [ HIGHLY UNLIKELY, VERGING ON IMPOSSIBLE] OR HER BODY WAS ON THE GROUND 1 METER FROM THE FENCE, 5 MINS BEFORE CODOSCH HEARD THE NOISE HITTING THE FENCE . ANNIE CHAPMAN COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE NOISE CODOSCH HEARD HITTING THE FENCE AT 5.28 IF SHE SAID NO AT 5.22

            The Coroner: We will postpone that for the present. You can give your opinion as to how the death was caused.
            Witness: From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action,NEARLY ALL in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat

            Lets not forget, nearly all so called Ripperologist believe that it was Annie Chapman that said ''NO'' and that it was her body falling against the fence that Codosch heard ,I respectfully disagree

            Just for you Herlock because you support the ''no'' and ''thud'' as being Chapman ,and dont say you dont, thats just dishonest you know it . just for good measure, the fence was nearly a metre from where Annie Chapman lay dead. Please dont tell me that jack stuck his leg out and kicked the fence while getting a better position to work on poor Annie , fairy tail stuff mate give that one a rest pleaseeeeeeeee

            Comment


            • If it was not Annie Chapman who fell against the fence, it was almost certainly her murderer. Who else could it have been?

              Comment


              • I asked you a question awhile ago Fishy. Do you honestly believe believe everything that Dr Phillips said?
                What i believe in regards to Phillips is that he was more likely to be correct with his time of death than anything that Mrs Long , Codosch or Richardson said, in relation to what or who they saw or heard or did.

                All 3 of their testimonies are totally contradictory and should not be used as fact that Chapman was murdered at 5.30 am. As has already been explained by most experts

                Comment


                • If
                  it was not Annie Chapman who fell against the fence, it was almost certainly her murderer. Who else could it have been?
                  what else? , not who else, thats more the question.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                    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 .

                    You will of course notice the word about. This means that he couldnít say that it was exactly twenty past.

                    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. ?

                    Cadosch of course didnít say that he heard Annie Chapman. Just that he heard something brush against the fence. Again we have to accept that his timing might have been out. Not definitely but possibly. Itís not a stretch of the imagination. Any reasonable person would accept this.

                    So we have 4 mins between the ''NO'' and the ''NOISE'' of something hitting the fence yes /no ?. ill answer for you Herlock . hmmmmm yes fishy . YES that sounds fair and reasonable.

                    Approximately...yes.

                    Lets see then , the killer and Chapman enter 29 Handbury st at 5.20, she thinking his a willing client and ready for the act , he intent on one thing, murder and mutilation . Why/what then did Chapman say NO for ? Surely its was the sudden lunge forward where the killer puts his hands around her neck to start strangling her rendering her unconscious causing death .[ Dr Phillips official cause of death ] OR did she have her back to him where he grabs her from behind and then strangled her from that position?[ unlikely] but either way Chapman is dead inside of 30 to 45 seconds , fair and reasonable ?[ likely] agree/ disagree ? Anyone.

                    Where you there Fishy? I certainly wasnít. You are stating things that you cannot know for certain. Why is it impossible that Annie and he killer were chatting quietly as they walked through the passage then, when they got into the yard, her killer said something to which any replied no. Annieís reply might ave been slightly louder than the rest of the talk which was why Cadosch heard it. Alternatively, t might have been the moment that he grabbed her by the throat. Either are entirely possible. You are stating as a fact something that itís impossible for any of us to know as a fact.

                    IF CODOSCH RETURNED 4 MINS AFTER HEARING THE ''NO'', AND UPON RETURNING A SECOND TIME [2 MORE MINS] THAT MEANS THE KILLER WAS EITHER HOLDING CHAPMAN UPRIGHT FOR 5 MINUTES [ HIGHLY UNLIKELY, VERGING ON IMPOSSIBLE] OR HER BODY WAS ON THE GROUND 1 METER FROM THE FENCE, 5 MINS BEFORE CODOSCH HEARD THE NOISE HITTING THE FENCE . ANNIE CHAPMAN COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE NOISE CODOSCH HEARD HITTING THE FENCE AT 5.28 IF SHE SAID NO AT 5.22

                    This proves that you really do not read posts. The noise of something brushing the fence could easily have been her killer as he was mutilating her unless you were there and saw what happened. This idea of the killer holding her up fo 5 minutes is nonsense which no one has suggested. Itís a straw man argument.

                    If it was Annie hat said no then the noise afterwards simply had to have been connected. Thereís no other explanation.


                    The Coroner: We will postpone that for the present. You can give your opinion as to how the death was caused.
                    Witness: From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action,NEARLY ALL in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat

                    Lets not forget, nearly all so called Ripperologist believe that it was Annie Chapman that said ''NO'' and that it was her body falling against the fence that Codosch heard ,I respectfully disagree

                    You disagree based on two things. The proven flawed evidence of Dr Phillips and your desperate wish for Annie to have been killed earlier. Basically itís obvious bias.

                    Just for you Herlock because you support the ''no'' and ''thud'' as being Chapman ,and dont say you dont, thats just dishonest you know it . just for good measure, the fence was nearly a metre from where Annie Chapman lay dead. Please dont tell me that jack stuck his leg out and kicked the fence while getting a better position to work on poor Annie , fairy tail stuff mate give that one a rest pleeeeee

                    Itís just not a good idea to make things up to prove a point Fishy. The fence was nowhere near a metre from Annie. Where have you got that from? John Davis said that the steps where three feet from the fence. So if we drew a line from the left hand side of the steps and ran it parallel to the fence we would have a width of one yard for Annie to lie in. Itís surprising that she wasnít actually touching the fence. So we can dispose of that nonsense.
                    As ever, this really is desperate stuff from you Fishy. Everything is against you. Experts tell us that Phillips was using unreliable methods and we have creditable witnesses. TOD 5.25 onwards. No doubt.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      If

                      what else? , not who else, thats more the question.
                      So it was a dog or a cat or perhaps a wolverine or a chimp or a ghost.

                      And pleeeese donít repeat the packing case nonsense Fishy.
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-05-2019, 12:45 PM.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                        If it was not Annie Chapman who fell against the fence, it was almost certainly her murderer. Who else could it have been?
                        Welcome to the rabbit hole Paul.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          What i believe in regards to Phillips is that he was more likely to be correct with his time of death than anything that Mrs Long , Codosch or Richardson said, in relation to what or who they saw or heard or did.

                          All 3 of their testimonies are totally contradictory and should not be used as fact that Chapman was murdered at 5.30 am. As has already been explained by most experts
                          But of course you will disagree with the infallible Dr Phillips when he said this:

                          [Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard

                          He appears to have forgotten to say that she was probably killed in a carriage and dumped in the yard. Strange that.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                            Why bother reading it in Wiki when you can read it here on this site?!

                            As if a link would change others mind..

                            I said why I don't accept him as a reliable witness, not to convince anyone.



                            The Baron
                            Sadly you are missing the point, its not the link to the wiki page i was asking for but the link to the actual source.


                            steve

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              What i believe in regards to Phillips is that he was more likely to be correct with his time of death than anything that Mrs Long , Codosch or Richardson said, in relation to what or who they saw or heard or did.
                              what do you base that on, certainly not on the medical knowledge which can fit a TOD that precisely.

                              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              All 3 of their testimonies are totally contradictory and should not be used as fact that Chapman was murdered at 5.30 am. As has already been explained by most experts
                              How is Richardson contradictory to any but Phillips?
                              Would care to name those experts?

                              Steve

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                                Sadly you are missing the point, its not the link to the wiki page i was asking for but the link to the actual source.


                                steve
                                The Baron apparently believes that anyone that has ever told a lie or made a mistake can never be believed again.
                                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