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

    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

    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 John G View Post
      Regarding rigor mortis, which has been referred to as a means of calculating time of death. The onset is widely variable, but usually appears 1-6 hours after time of death, with 2-4 hours being the average time: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...y/rigor-mortis
      Exactly John.

      Take note Professor Fishy.
      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

        Excerpt from the above ........ cut and pasted,as follows ....... NB rectal temp of 32C.

        Sheremainedwellforthefollowingtwomonths,butwasagainadmittedinNovember1979,afterhavingseveralmajorseizures.Oncemoreshewasdrowsy,hypotensiveandherrectaltemperaturewas32°C.Onthisoccasionalthoughherconsciouslevelandbloodpressurereturnedtonormal,sheremainedhypothermic.Therectaltemperaturevariedbetween32°Cand345°Candwasnotimprovedbystoppingheranticonvulsantdrugs.TheEEGwasstilldiffuselydisturbedbutarepeatCATscanwasnormal.Psy-chometryshowedaverbalIQof74(borderlinesub-normalrange)andaperformanceIQof61(mildlysubnormalrange)withaseveredefectofshort-termmemorywhichwasproducingdisorientationoftime,place,personandcurrentevents.Oldrotelearningprocesseswerewellpreservedbutshehadproblemswithcomprehension,logicalthinkingandmotorco-ordination.Furtherinvestigationsofthehypothalamicandpituitaryfunction,cardiovascularreflexesandthermoregulatorystatuswerecarriedout.

        cheers Dave

        More study for Professor Fishy
        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 Sam Flynn View Post

          ... and the manner of Chapman's death was far from average.
          But according to Fish Dr Gandalf Phillips couldn’t have gotten it wrong.
          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 Trevor Marriott View Post

            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
            We know for an absolute fact that the methods of TOD estimation were unreliable. He may have lucky guessed it of course.

            I haven’t heard of any criminal conviction from Richardson but I’m certainly not saying that he didn’t have them. This doesn’t affect his testimony though. We simply can’t keep assuming that people are inherently dishonest just because they told a lie once or committed a crime once.

            When Cadosch was cautious about hearing the word ‘no’ this speaks in his favour. It speaks against him just lying for his 15 minutes of fame.

            Long is different of course. She might simply have seen 2 unconnected people. But she might just have got her time wrong.
            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

              "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.
              He agrees with you, so he makes a lot of sense?

              Trevor isn't saying anything new. It's always been a case of 'if' Mrs Long saw Chapman, 'if' she was hearing the half hour or quarter hour, 'if' Cadosch's timings were right, 'if' what he heard did come from the yard of no. 29.... But it is only right that we consider what it means if they did see Chapman or hear a voice and bump from no.29. So, if the bump was against the fence, and it wasn't caused by Chapman or her murderer, who or what caused it?

              And perhaps you should take heed of Trevor's closing comment before confidently stating that Chapman died at 5:30am: '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.' As I said, '...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.' It seems that Trevor and I are in agreement! Time to put the flags out.
              Last edited by PaulB; 09-06-2019, 11:39 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                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 .
                Fishy, I’ll stay as calm as I can but it’s difficult when faced with the level of dishonesty that you keep displaying in your posts.

                We know for a definitely ascertained fact that Phillip’s TOD estimate cannot be relied upon. We have the whole of Forensic medical, authority to testify to this fact.

                We have three witnesses who all point to a later TOD. Of course these witnesses can be questioned as Trevor said. I’m not saying that it’s impossible that they were all wrong or lying. I’d say that it was unlikely in the extreme though.

                So an unsafe TOD combined with three witnesses who directly contradict that TOD has to, by any reasonable, unbiased consideration, point to a very serious likelihood that Chapman was killed some time after 5.20.

                And so what do you rely on for your desperate argument. You cite Trevor and Wolf (and Fish too of course) as if that tips the balance. Sorry Fishy but I can name far, far more who accept the possibility/likelihood that Annie had a later TOD. All of them very knowledgable (and one of them considered one of the world’s leading authorities on the subject.)

                Its also very noticeable that in the poll at the beginning of the thread only 1 out of 15 reckons that Phillips was correct. Hardly close.

                You also keep resorting to lies to try and make your point Fishy. This really isn’t good. You keep telling me what I believe. I’ve corrected you several times but you continue to do it. I’ll say it one more time Fishy........I do not think that the noise that Cadosch heard was Annie’s body falling against the fence. I believe that it was the murderer. So please stop trying to perpetuate this lie that I believe that he killed her then somehow held her up for five minutes. It’s a lie Fishy. Please have the decency to stop repeating it. If you want to know my opinion on anything you just need to ask. Don’t simply make it up.

                In an earlier post you implied that there was a metres gap between Annie’s body and the fence. This is nonsense of course.


                And so to sum up. Very little in his case is certain. We all interpret. We should interpret honestly. The unreliability of Phillips TOD estimates combined with three witnesses lead us to the overwhelming likelihood that Annie died later than 5.20. Not a definite fact but a definite likelihood.

                You and Fish are indulging in wish thinking to support theories. Evidence should come first, theories come later.

                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-06-2019, 11:41 AM.
                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


                • For god sakes...you have a close proximity witness created window here...Richardson to Cadosche. She was killed after Richardson went back in and just after "no"' was heard...end of discussion. What Phillips estimates are aren't worth spit when you have 2 people who were basically within arms length of where the woman died within a hour of that event. Any suggestion she was killed earlier, or somewhere else, is easily, easily... dismissed by the evidence alone. She wasn't there at around 4:45, and she was at around 5:50. Done. That's the TOD window, if you need further proof that medical opinions take a back seat to onsite witnesses...just look at Stride,...the 2 official opinions differ by 1/2 hour, within just an hour of the murder. One says roughly between 12:46 and 1, the other says maybe as early as 11:30. And that's at 12:30. And with a single cut. Annie was gutted.
                  Last edited by Michael W Richards; 09-06-2019, 01:30 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    For god sakes...you have a close proximity witness created window here...Richardson to Cadosche. She was killed after Richardson went back in and just after "no"' was heard...end of discussion. What Phillips estimates are aren't worth spit when you have 2 people who were basically within arms length of where the woman died within a hour of that event. Any suggestion she was killed earlier, or somewhere else, is easily, easily... dismissed by the evidence alone. She wasn't there at around 4:45, and she was at around 5:50. Done. That's the TOD window, if you need further proof that medical opinions take a back seat to onsite witnesses...just look at Stride,...the 2 official opinions differ by 1/2 hour, within just an hour of the murder. One says roughly between 12:46 and 1, the other says maybe as early as 11:30. And that's at 12:30. And with a single cut. Annie was gutted.
                    But you keep being told the witness testimony is unsafe. Richardson gave two differing accounts, why was that, which if either was the truth ? or was it the case that he did see the body and decided not to get involved, for fear of him perhaps being accused, or as one of his statements states he simply didn't look in the direction of where the body lay and it was there all the time?

                    I have to ask why the ambiguity relating to the two differing accounts was not clarified either by the police, or the coroner?

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Trevor,
                      What was so significant about the different accounts you say John Richardson gave that his testimony cannot now be accepted?

                      Comment


                      • Trevor,
                        Can you point me to where Richardson said that he didn’t look “in the direction of where the body lay and it was there all the time” please?



                        [Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
                        [Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
                        [Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
                        [Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
                        [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.

                        Richardson couldn’t really have been more adamant that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there. We also have to remember that he actually saw the body when he returned to the house so he knew it’s exact location, it’s position and how much floor space it took up.

                        Can we place any great sinister significance in the fact that Chandler said that, when he spoke to Richardson in the passageway, he said nothing about sitting on the step? It would hardly have been an in depth interrogation after all.

                        Perhaps Richardson said something like - “I checked on the cellar doors and there was no body in the yard.” Why would Chandler have pushed him any further? All he’d have wanted to know was a) was Richardson the murderer, and b) was he body there at 4.50. Richardson gave him the answer to b).

                        Even if we go down the ‘sinister’ route is it impossible that Richardson didn’t want to place himself at the scene of a murder in possession of a knife? And so a bit of judicious silence about his knifework came into play?

                        Trevor suggests that he might have actually seen the body but didn’t want to get involved? We would then have to ask why admit to being in the yard at 4.50 in the first place?

                        For me, both Cadosch and Richardson are creditable witnesses whose testimony carry more weight than Phillips.
                        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-06-2019, 07:38 PM.
                        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 PaulB View Post
                          What was so significant about the different accounts you say John Richardson gave that his testimony cannot now be accepted?
                          I was thinking the same, Paul. It's not as if there were violent contradictions.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                            Trevor,
                            What was so significant about the different accounts you say John Richardson gave that his testimony cannot now be accepted?
                            I didnt say it cannot be accepted, but that it is unsafe having regard to the two differing accounts he gave of his movements and what he did etc

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              Trevor,
                              Can you point me to where Richardson said that he didn’t look “in the direction of where the body lay and it was there all the time” please?

                              [Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Richardson - "Yes, I must have seen her" either he did or he didnt !!!

                              Can we place any great sinister significance in the fact that Chandler said that, when he spoke to Richardson in the passageway, he said nothing about sitting on the step? It would hardly have been an in depth interrogation after all.

                              Perhaps Richardson said something like - “I checked on the cellar doors and there was no body in the yard.” Why would Chandler have pushed him any further? All he’d have wanted to know was a) was Richardson the murderer, and b) was he body there at 4.50. Richardson gave him the answer to b).

                              You cant say perhaps because you are hypothesizing.

                              He gave one account to Chandler very soon after the body was discovered, and another one at the inquest. It doesn't have to be an in depth interrogation it then makes his testimony unsafe because like so many of the inquest testimonies there was no clarification to the ambiguities that arose from witness testimony

                              Even if we go down the ‘sinister’ route is it impossible that Richardson didn’t want to place himself at the scene of a murder in possession of a knife? And so a bit of judicious silence about his knifework came into play?

                              Trevor suggests that he might have actually seen the body but didn’t want to get involved? We would then have to ask why admit to being in the yard at 4.50 in the first place?

                              When questioned, he had to admit to being in the yard for fear of him being seen, or someone mentioning his name. If he said he wasnt there and the police had witnesses who saw him go into the house or come out, he would have been in great difficulty, and if the body was there and he saw the body, and was in possession of a knife I would imagine panic might have set in, se easy to say he was there but saw nothing.

                              For me, both Cadosch and Richardson are creditable witnesses whose testimony carry more weight than Phillips.
                              They are credible, but there testimony is unsafe

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                They are credible, but there testimony is unsafe

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                That seems to be a contradiction?

                                When Richardson said “yes I must have seen her,” he obviously meant that he couldn’t have missed her had she been there. But he didn’t see her.....because she wasn’t there.

                                I’m sorry but Richardson is not unsafe. If a witness gives two accounts it does not automatically make that witness unsafe. What if a witness remembered something else? What if a witness was asked a question that he wasn’t asked earlier? There’s nothing particularly suspicious about Richardson not mentioning sitting on the step. He told Chandler that the body wasn’t there at 4.50. Chandler assumed that as Richardson wasn’t blind or a drooling imbecile that he was competent to make that judgment without needing to ask him what position he was when he saw into the yard.

                                Your point about him being concerned that he might have been seen going entering the yard is a fair one of course.

                                But he still didn’t have to admit to being in possession of a knife. He could have said that he’d sat on the back step and smoked a pipe for 5 minutes. What if he’d seen the body and denied that it was there only to have been seen by a neighbour whose house overlooked the yard?

                                There’s nothing obviously unsafe about Richardson or Cadosch. Chapman killed sometime after 5.20. Almost no doubt.
                                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