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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.

    You dont know what he meant you can only guess,but what he did say makes little sense in answer to the question

    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.

    But the two accounts differ quite considerably in the grand scheme of things

    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?

    Precisely what I said previous he could not risk denying he was there

    He could have said lots of things, but what he did say was contradictory, so that makes him unsafe, if you dont think so then which of his two differing accounts is the correct one, the answer is we do not know.

    There’s nothing obviously unsafe about Richardson or Cadosch. Chapman killed sometime after 5.20. Almost no doubt.
    I am afraid that is not an ascertained fact !

    I am wondering why is there such a desperate need to tie the TOD down to 5.20am she was clearly killed by the same hand as some of the others, however 5.20am is not in line with any of the other victims, so we have to question the reliability of the evidence, which you and others say points to 5.20am


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      I am afraid that is not an ascertained fact !

      I am wondering why is there such a desperate need to tie the TOD down to 5.20am she was clearly killed by the same hand as some of the others, however 5.20am is not in line with any of the other victims, so we have to question the reliability of the evidence, which you and others say points to 5.20am


      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      On the point about Richardson saying “yes I must have seen her.” He can only have meant that if she’d have been there I would have seen her. The only alternative would that he was saying that he saw the body but no one noticed his admission. This one’s black and white Trevor. He could only have meant one thing.

      It’s ludicrous to keep harping on about the differences in what he said to Chandler and in his Inquest testimony. It’s nitpicking. He said that he couldn’t possibly have missed seeing a body had it been there in both. Once under oath. How do we know that Chandler didn’t just mishear what he’d said? If he missed a detail out because he didn’t think it important this isn’t proof of anything. He told all details under oath. He didn’t see a body because it wasn’t there.

      Is there anyone, any single person in this case that isn’t “unsafe” Trevor?

      The only desperate need to tie down a TOD is by those that dishonestly oppose the entirety of Forensic science knowledge to shoehorn a theory in. This whole issue is pretty simple. Science tells us that Phillips TOD estimation is “unsafe” to rely on and we have three witnesses that contradict him. Chapman was overwhelmingly likely to have been killed after 5.20. Almost no doubt at all. The times of the other murders? Nichols at 3.40. Only an hour and three quarters earlier. Was the killer on a stop watch?

      To say that the TOD might be wrong because it differs slightly from the others.....now that’s “unsafe.”

      Comment


      • Herlock its been explained to you know by Wolf Vanderlinden ,Trevor Marriott and myself . the Long Codosch Richardson scenario is not proof or certain that Chapman was killed at 5.30am ,just accept that as the truth and stop fooling yourself and others .

        IF ITS YOUR BELIEF, THATS THE WAY IT HAPPEN FINE , BUT WHEN OTHERS WANT TO ENTERTAIN ANOTHER POSSIBILITY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE VERY CONTRADICTORY AND UNCERTAINTY OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY , YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED TO TRY AND CONVINCE THEM THEIR FLAT OUT WRONG , WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO .

        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


          YOU MISSED THIS POST HERLOCK , PROBABLY BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE HUH .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            I am afraid that is not an ascertained fact !

            I am wondering why is there such a desperate need to tie the TOD down to 5.20am she was clearly killed by the same hand as some of the others, however 5.20am is not in line with any of the other victims, so we have to question the reliability of the evidence, which you and others say points to 5.20am


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Hi Trevor,

            Regarding your point that 5:20 am is " not in line with any of the victims." Surely this point is that there were fairly wide time variations in respect of ToD

            Thus, Nicholls around 3:45 am, Stride around 1:00am (if you believe she was a Ripper victim), Eddowes around 1:45, Kelly...well, who knows? Could have been about 4:00 am when shouts of "oh murder", were heard, although such cries were commonplace; could have been after 8:30, based upon the Maxwell sighting; could have been 5:20! We simply don't know.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Exactly John.

              Take note Professor Fishy.
              I'm not sure why rigor mortis was even referred to, Herlock, as it's the least reliable means of calculating the post mortem interval. Moreover, when applying this method you're supposed to take regular periodic readings, something that Dr McFall, in the Wallace case, failed to do and, as a consequence, he was pretty much humiliated on the witness stand.

              Rectal body temperature is the most accurate, where the post mortem interval is relatively short, but this approach requires nonograms, a calculator, and a series of complex calculations! Even there's still a significant margin of error.
              Last edited by John G; 09-07-2019, 07:23 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                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
                Okay, unsafe. The question is what are the contradictions and why do you attach significance to them. (And I mean to the specific contradictions in Richardson's story, not to contradictions in stories in general.)
                Last edited by PaulB; 09-07-2019, 09:17 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  Herlock its been explained to you know by Wolf Vanderlinden ,Trevor Marriott and myself . the Long Codosch Richardson scenario is not proof or certain that Chapman was killed at 5.30am ,just accept that as the truth and stop fooling yourself and others .

                  IF ITS YOUR BELIEF, THATS THE WAY IT HAPPEN FINE , BUT WHEN OTHERS WANT TO ENTERTAIN ANOTHER POSSIBILITY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE VERY CONTRADICTORY AND UNCERTAINTY OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY , YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED TO TRY AND CONVINCE THEM THEIR FLAT OUT WRONG , WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO .
                  Again, please try reading posts properly. I’ve used phrases like “overwhelmingly likely” the only thing that I’ve said is a definite fact is that it’s a definite fact the the methods employed by Phillips were definitely unsafe. That’s definitely definite.

                  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.
                    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


                    YOU MISSED THIS POST HERLOCK , PROBABLY BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE HUH .
                    If one of your posts made sense it would be the first time ever.

                    1. The fact that Cadosch is cautious about which direction the word no came from points away from someone lying just to get a bit of fame. No one could have contradicted him. He could have said that he was certain. He could even have exaggerated what he’d heard but no...he was cautious.

                    2. The lawyer was basically being a Lawyer. So are you saying that Cadosch was unlikely to have been correct because he didn’t actually see the killer?

                    3. Cadosch was confident that the noise against the fence came from number 29.


                    You could probably question every single witness in every single crime Fishy. You are desperately jumping on any triviality just to be able to jump up and down yelling “unsafe!unsafe!”

                    Cadosch is a creditable witness. As is Richardson. There is an obvious question mark over Long.

                    You dismiss them out of bias nothing more. Again, it’s overwhelmingly likely that Chapman died after 5.20. The only think that was unsafe was Phillips TOD as proven by every single expert. The witnesses outweigh Phillips. No question.
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-07-2019, 10:20 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by John G View Post

                      Hi Trevor,

                      Regarding your point that 5:20 am is " not in line with any of the victims." Surely this point is that there were fairly wide time variations in respect of ToD

                      Thus, Nicholls around 3:45 am, Stride around 1:00am (if you believe she was a Ripper victim), Eddowes around 1:45, Kelly...well, who knows? Could have been about 4:00 am when shouts of "oh murder", were heard, although such cries were commonplace; could have been after 8:30, based upon the Maxwell sighting; could have been 5:20! We simply don't know.
                      Exactly John.

                      Apparently it’s acceptable for Eddowes murder to have taken place two hours before Nichols TOD but unacceptable for Chapman to have been killed two hours after.

                      Do serial killers only work nights? Have I missed something?

                      The lengths that some will go to to try and make a point.

                      Comment


                      • Trevor, if you took a statement from someone and that person came up to you a day later to add a detail or two would you automatically consider this second statement unsafe? Or simply as additional information?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          Herlock its been explained to you know by Wolf Vanderlinden ,Trevor Marriott and myself . the Long Codosch Richardson scenario is not proof or certain that Chapman was killed at 5.30am ,just accept that as the truth and stop fooling yourself and others .

                          IF ITS YOUR BELIEF, THATS THE WAY IT HAPPEN FINE , BUT WHEN OTHERS WANT TO ENTERTAIN ANOTHER POSSIBILITY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE VERY CONTRADICTORY AND UNCERTAINTY OF THE WITNESS TESTIMONY , YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED TO TRY AND CONVINCE THEM THEIR FLAT OUT WRONG , WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO .
                          There’s no such thing as a Long/Richardson/Cadosch scenario. These are three witnesses who all contradict Phillips dodgy TOD (which we now know can safely be discarded) The only contradiction was with Long where we have three alternatives. She lied, she was mistaken or she was correct but got the time wrong. You of course need all three witnesses to be wrong so you start making things up about me believing stuff that I obviously don’t. And even when I explain this you you dishonestly persist in posting it. What kind of debating is this?!

                          Richardson was a confident witness. Confident that he absolutely could not have missed a body had it been there. So you try and turn the fact that he possibly, and I say possibly because Chandler may have been mistaken, didn’t mention sitting on the step. A matter so trivial that it’s laughable that you try and use it to discredit him. As I said in an earlier post, if he’d have said to Chandler that he’d looked into the yard and he would have seen the body had it been there then that’s all Chandler really needed to know. The position that he adopted when he either stood or sat would have been irrelevant at the time of that brief interview in the passage. There is nothing unsafe about Richardson.

                          There’s nothing unsafe about Cadosch either. He’s cautious about the no but confident about the noise. And so if Dr Gandalf Phillips was correct then a noise came from a yard where a mutilated woman lay. So it couldn’t have been a human that made it or he’d have seen he body. Would a dog or a cat have approached a human figure even a dead one? We are entering the realms of fantasy. Its entirely reasonable that the no and the noise were connected to Annie and her murder.

                          Its long past time to ditch this biased nonsense. Yet again we have a Doctor using methods that we know for certain we’re unsafe versus three witnesses that contradicted him. It’s game over for this 4.30 TOD drivel. It’s time for certain posters to ditch the bias and follow the evidence and stop employing desperate methods to keep theories alive.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-07-2019, 10:51 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            Trevor, if you took a statement from someone and that person came up to you a day later to add a detail or two would you automatically consider this second statement unsafe? Or simply as additional information?
                            It would depend on the content of what was to be changed or added. Just for arguments sake as an example lets pretend that someone was charged with her murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence to connect him to the victim, and the evidence of 5.20am was used as the TOD.

                            Richardson being the prime prosecution witness. A defence barrister would have a field day cross examining him with regards to his differing accounts, and likely as not a jury would not be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that his evidence was totally safe to rely on. The discrepanicies may seem only minor to you but in the grand scheme of things they are much bigger.

                            The same applies to the testimony of Cadosh and Mrs Long there evidence would not stand up, and are both unsafe to totally back up she was killed at 5.20am

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John G View Post

                              Hi Trevor,

                              Regarding your point that 5:20 am is " not in line with any of the victims." Surely this point is that there were fairly wide time variations in respect of ToD

                              Thus, Nicholls around 3:45 am, Stride around 1:00am (if you believe she was a Ripper victim), Eddowes around 1:45, Kelly...well, who knows? Could have been about 4:00 am when shouts of "oh murder", were heard, although such cries were commonplace; could have been after 8:30, based upon the Maxwell sighting; could have been 5:20! We simply don't know.
                              Let me rephrase it then and say none of the others were killed in daylight hours sunrise that morning was 5.24am

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                It would depend on the content of what was to be changed or added. Just for arguments sake as an example lets pretend that someone was charged with her murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence to connect him to the victim, and the evidence of 5.20am was used as the TOD.

                                Richardson being the prime prosecution witness. A defence barrister would have a field day cross examining him with regards to his differing accounts, and likely as not a jury would not be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that his evidence was totally safe to rely on. The discrepanicies may seem only minor to you but in the grand scheme of things they are much bigger.

                                The same applies to the testimony of Cadosh and Mrs Long there evidence would not stand up, and are both unsafe to totally back up she was killed at 5.20am

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                What if, on being cross examined, Richardson had said something like:

                                “i just told the Inspector that I checked the cellar door and that I was certain that there was no body in the yard and that I’d have seen it had it been there. He never asked if I was standing or sitting.”

                                That would have been all Chandler needed to know at the time, apart from whether Richardson was involved or not.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X