Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

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

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    ... and the manner of Chapman's death was far from average.
    Yes, that's very true Sam. As I noted in one of my earlier posts Henssge's model requires corrections to be made in respect of body weight and cooling conditions deviating from standard. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...applet&f=false
    Last edited by John G; 09-06-2019, 07:21 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

      Keep passing, and for god sake take Herlock with you, as his stuck on Long,Codosch Richardson contradiction. And Chapman was 100 per cent killed at 5.30am
      You can argue as much as you like, and there's no question that you like it a lot, but there is uncertainty about when Annie Chapman died and there always has been. Arguing that it is 100% certain she was killed at 5:30am, when it is by no means certain that she was, is ridiculous. But life is too short to get involved in any discussion with you over that. My post concerned the bump against the fence; if you believe that noise was not caused by Chapman or her murderer, it's up to you to suggest who or what you think caused it. After all, Cadosch says he heard a voice from the yard, which, if true, means someone was there who could have attested to the presence or absence of the body. In fact, there were possibly two people, the speaker and the person who was spoken to, so we have to suppose that there were one or two people in the yard whose identities are unknown, one or the other of whom bumped against the fence. Or, if it is a 'what' that fell against the fence, who left the yard before the 'what' did so. Or is that all wrong?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        How many experts Fishy? Was it two? The rest of the experts that have looked into the case (a lot more than 2) have no problem with it.

        The problem with Phillips though is that every single expert in the whole universe is in agreement that he couldnít have predicted the TOD accurately.

        I wish that you could read your own posts. What a joke.
        I have no horse in this race save to say that although we know from what experts tell us that TOD cannot be accurately determined and that it is simply guesswork, there have to be time when the guesses are near to being correct.

        As an example in the case of Eddowes murder. At the crime scene two doctors guessed her time of death which fits in line with what we know of her movements prior to death were

        Dr Brown - The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body.

        Dr Sequeira who arrived at the crime scene first - he was asked the question "How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived? - Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.

        So in my opinion Phillips TOD should not be totally dismissed. Other factors should also be considered, the main one being the murder not being in line with the times of the other murders. None were as late as 5.30am. As has been said the killer was taking a great risk killing at that time of the morning, and in a location where he could easily have been captured or seen.

        Mrs Long statement is unsafe to rely on she doesn't make a positive identification that the woman she saw was Chapman

        Coroner - "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? -
        Mrs LOng "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning."
        Coroner "At that hour of the day? - "Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them"

        As to Cadosch again his testimony is unsafe what does he say

        "I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29" I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.

        He mentions bumps and noises, at that time of the morning sounds would carry some distance

        As to Richardson was he an honest man? I believe he had criminal convictions !
        He gave differing accounts of his movements and timings one ambiguity in his testimony

        [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - "Yes, I must have seen her" but he didnt, or did he see her and panicked and wanted to distance himself from the crime scene and perhaps him being looked upon as a suspect? I think this is a more plausible explantion

        As to the witnesses and their testimony again I have to say that there testimony is not as watertight as some would belive

        As to firmly establishing a time of death I dont think that there is any reliable evidence to tie the time of death down to the satisfaction of some researchers

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • You can argue as much as you like, and there's no question that you like it a lot, but there is uncertainty about when Annie Chapman died and there always has been. Arguing that it is 100% certain she was killed at 5:30am, when it is by no means certain that she was, is ridiculous. But life is too short to get involved in any discussion with you over that. My post concerned the bump against the fence; if you believe that noise was not caused by Chapman or her murderer, it's up to you to suggest who or what you think caused it. After all, Cadosch says he heard a voice from the yard, which, if true, means someone was there who could have attested to the presence or absence of the body. In fact, there were possibly two people, the speaker and the person who was spoken to, so we have to suppose that there were one or two people in the yard whose identities are unknown, one or the other of whom bumped against the fence. Or, if it is a 'what' that fell against the fence, who left the yard before the 'what' did so. Or is that all wrong?
          "I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29" I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.

          Thanks trevor for your post and THE ABOVE part
          in particular. Like ive said all along, the ''NO'' codosch hears at 5.22 is not proof of chapman and her killer were in the yard at that time .

          you should check out the marriot post paulb, makes a lot of sense.

          Comment


          • I have no horse in this race save to say that although we know from what experts tell us that TOD cannot be accurately determined and that it is simply guesswork, there have to be time when the guesses are near to being correct.

            As an example in the case of Eddowes murder. At the crime scene two doctors guessed her time of death which fits in line with what we know of her movements prior to death were

            Dr Brown - The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body.

            Dr Sequeira who arrived at the crime scene first - he was asked the question "How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived? - Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.

            So in my opinion Phillips TOD should not be totally dismissed. Other factors should also be considered, the main one being the murder not being in line with the times of the other murders. None were as late as 5.30am. As has been said the killer was taking a great risk killing at that time of the morning, and in a location where he could easily have been captured or seen.

            Mrs Long statement is unsafe to rely on she doesn't make a positive identification that the woman she saw was Chapman

            Coroner - "Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? -
            Mrs LOng "Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning."
            Coroner "At that hour of the day? - "Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them"

            As to Cadosch again his testimony is unsafe what does he say

            "I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29" I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.

            He mentions bumps and noises, at that time of the morning sounds would carry some distance

            As to Richardson was he an honest man? I believe he had criminal convictions !
            He gave differing accounts of his movements and timings one ambiguity in his testimony

            [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - "Yes, I must have seen her" but he didnt, or did he see her and panicked and wanted to distance himself from the crime scene and perhaps him being looked upon as a suspect? I think this is a more plausible explantion

            As to the witnesses and their testimony again I have to say that there testimony is not as watertight as some would belive

            As to firmly establishing a time of death I dont think that there is any reliable evidence to tie the time of death down to the satisfaction of some researchers

            This post is for surely you Herlock, now you can waste 500 return post explaining to Trevor Marriott what ive been telling you all along, how many others do you need . 1 Wolf Vanderlinden , 2 Trevor Marriott . The list grows, GET ON IT . So please stop trying to convince people that Chapman was killed a t 5.30 am, based solely on the testimony of L,C,R. ITS JUST NOT A FACT .

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              Other factors should also be considered, the main one being the murder not being in line with the times of the other murders. None were as late as 5.30am.
              There was quite a wide spread: Stride at 1AM, Nichols at around 3:30AM and Kelly possibly around 4AM or even later. Seen in that context, 5:30AM doesn't seem in the least bit outlandish.

              As has been said the killer was taking a great risk... in a location where he could easily have been captured or seen.
              True, but the same applied in greater or lesser degree to all the other open-air murders. I'd agree that the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, having only one obvious exit, was a potential trap, but it was no more so than Miller's Court. The issue is moot anyway, as both 29 Hanbury and Miller's Court were potential traps at any time of day.

              Speaking of time, and indeed light, there would have been precious little illumination in that yard before the dawn started to break. Now, Mitre Square was faintly lit, but at least there were lamps there, which is more than can be said of the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street. Yet the abdominal wounds - three separate "flaps" of flesh, God help us! - were more intricate than the single zig-zag cut inflicted on Eddowes, and Chapman's uterus was more completely and "cleanly" removed. If the weak gaslight of Mitre Square presented the killer with any challenges, then the pitch blackness at the rear of 29 Hanbury Street before sun-up would have been even more tricky for him.

              As to Richardson was he an honest man? I believe he had criminal convictions !
              I don't see how that has any relevance to his testimony in this specific instance.

              He gave differing accounts of his movements and timings one ambiguity in his testimony
              Not to the extent where it negates his adamancy that there was no corpse there, which he affirmed more than once.

              You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - "Yes, I must have seen her" but he didnt, or did he see her and panicked and wanted to distance himself from the crime scene and perhaps him being looked upon as a suspect? I think this is a more plausible explantion
              How is that more plausible? If he hadn't volunteered to say that he'd been there, there'd have been no reason to suspect him of anything.
              Last edited by Sam Flynn; 09-06-2019, 10:16 AM.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                which means 5.20 he gave a time , its called common sense ,which you lack
                No!

                When someone tells you a time and they say it was about 5.20 they are not saying that it was exactly 5.20. This is just the English language Fishy. Cadosch was saying that it was around 5.20. Fact.
                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

                  herlock do you know what the word contradiction actually means , ?
                  Yes i do. My understanding of the English language appears to be far better than yours as I know what the phrase ďabout 5.20Ē means when you donít. I said that there is no contradiction between Richardson and Cadosch...and there obviously isnít. But there obviously is a contradiction between Longís evidence and Richardson/Cadosch. Please tell me that you understand this concept Fishy?

                  Why are you constantly suggesting that this dissertation is like some kind of holy writ? Itís an article by a man. Itís a good article but no more. But just because you agree with it you keep mentioning it as if it was unquestionable perfection. Iíve read it several times. I disagree. So what?
                  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 Trevor Marriott View Post
                    Mrs Long statement is unsafe to rely on she doesn't make a positive identification that the woman she saw was Chapman
                    Yes she does;

                    Daily News 20 Sept
                    "She had never seen her before, but she recognised the deceased when she saw her in the mortuary as the same person.
                    The Coroner - Are you sure?
                    The Witness - Oh, yes."

                    As to Richardson was he an honest man? I believe he had criminal convictions
                    Any source for this belief, Trevor?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      yes you have , its part of your theory you need to fit in with codoschs statement .stop pleading innocent
                      I challenge you to find a post by me where Iíve said this.

                      This is a lie and if you are going to accuse me of lying the very least that you can do is back this up with proof.
                      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


                        more denial on your behalf, you haven't proven a thing , fact 5.22 to 5.28 blows your theory apart end of story
                        You are simply lying. End of.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • "I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29" I, however, cannot say on which side it came from.
                          Let me try finally, one last ditch effort, to show just how unwise it would be to accept Albert Codoschs testimony as factual that Annie Chapman being killed at 5.30 am .

                          Lawyer . So Mr Codosch is it true that you cant be sure which side of the fence the ''NO'' came from ?
                          Mr Codosch , thats correct i cannot say which side .

                          Lawyer , so in fact Mr Codosch if you cant say which side it came from then its ''POSSIBLE'' that the ''NO'' came from elsewhere is that correct ?

                          Mr Codosch . Thats also correct and its possible.

                          Lawyer . Mr Codosch did you'' SEE'' any person say ''NO'' at 5.22am. in 29 Hanbury st ? ?

                          Mr Codosch . No i did not see anyone in the yard at 29

                          Lawyer . So Mr Codosch the noise you heard hit the fence at 5.28 am, did you actually see anybody in the yard make that noise against the fence ?

                          Mr Codosch . No i did not ''SEE'' any person make the noise , i only heard a noise .

                          Lawyer , so in fact Mr Codosch based on your testimony you really cant be ''SURE'' that the killer or Mrs Chapman or anyone else was in the yard at 29 Hanbury st at between 5.20 and 5.30am

                          Mr Codosch, no i cannot be sure


                          Now to say Albert Codosch was right, just because Annie Chapman body was discovered in the yard at 6.00am is accepting his circumstantial evidence to be a fact .

                          His entire role in the Chapman murder should at the very least be treated as just one possibility into her killing, and a very very minor one at that.


                          THE SAME CAN BE DONE WITH LONG AND RICHARDSON

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                            I BELIEVE THAT THE NOISE AGAINST THE FENCE WAS THE MURDERER HIMSELF.


                            More reason to not believe this fairy tale now we have the murdered hitting the fence
                            You have just quoted me as saying - I believe that the noise against the fence was the murderer himself.

                            Two posts ago you accused me saying that it was Annieís body against the fence.

                            How is this a fairy story?

                            If Chapman was already dead (according to Phillips) when Cadosch heard the noise what else could have made it. Youíve tried saying that it was packing cases (probably moved around by a ghost that was unconcerned about the sight of a corpse) despite the fact that there were no packing cases in the yard or something non-human! Who is the one with the fairy stories.
                            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

                              There you going again with the expert talk , stop using it if your not prepared to stand by what they say about Eddowes . ignore ignore ignore ,shame on you Herlock
                              Drivel.

                              You....Fishy...think that youíre qualified to dismiss every single Forensic expert in the world. Itís pathetic.

                              Its game over Fishy. Your joke theory was exposed as hogwash 40 years ago. Show some integrity and lose the embarrassing bias.
                              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

                                Richardson was contradictory to inspector chandler at the crime scene and then at the inquest.

                                Wolf Vanderlinden i consider to be one.... 'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman
                                By Wolf Vanderlinden

                                Wolf Vanderlinden is the Associate Editor of Ripper Notes.
                                " Very grave doubt now exists as to the exact time when the woman Chapman was murdered."


                                - The Daily News
                                17 September, 1888

                                READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
                                Why is Wolf Vanderlinden more likely to be correct than any other researcher/Ripperologist? He has simply given an opinion. Worth listening to yes but an opinion nonetheless.
                                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