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 Trevor Marriott View Post

    The Foreman: What height are the palings? - About 5 ft. 6 in. to 6 ft. high.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    You said 5.6 inches, Trev

    Anyway, what if the killer was crouching down? And could you see through the fence?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

      You said 5.6 inches, Trev

      Anyway, what if the killer was crouching down? And could you see through the fence?
      And it assumes that Cadosch looked to see who said 'No' or bumped against the fence.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

        You said 5.6 inches, Trev

        Anyway, what if the killer was crouching down? And could you see through the fence?
        So many what if`s. All possibilities have to be explored, this is but one of them in an attempt to test the reliability of the witness testimony.

        When he came out of the house and onto the top step, he would have been at least 2-3 feet higher than the top of the fence. Would the killer have had time to do that, with the element of surprise perhaps. If that had happened all movement from the other side of the fence would have stopped, and there would have been no banging against the fence.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

          And it assumes that Cadosch looked to see who said 'No' or bumped against the fence.
          Indeed, Paul. Cadosch didn't know that a gruesome murder was occurring mere feet away. He went out for a leak, heard a voice and a brushing against the fence. There was no real need for him to think twice about it.

          Comment


          • When Richardson says "I must have seen her" Trevor, its merely a statement. Nothing ambiguous about it. Perhaps if he had concluded with..."had she been there", your comfort zone would be better. But as it is we have the framed time period when Annie is murdered within...2 reliable witness statements both of which are the closest people to the actual murder site. Annie is almost certainly murdered between 5 and 5:30am.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              So the next time i hear a noise hit my back fence when i get up to go to work, should i also expect there to be a murderer and his victim in the yard next door just because a corpse was there 30 mins later ?. The noise doesn't prove it was them it only proves that codosch heard a noise, period..... that could have been anything.

              Again, because Phillips said that there was a body in the yard 2 hours , [his t.o.d] before. Its more likely Chapman was dead all alone in the yard from 4.30am to the time she was discovered at 6.00am .The ''no'' and the ''thud'' are not proof anyone was in the yard . Thats a fact . Stop trying to prove otherwise . ...
              Your desperation to shoehorn the Knight/Sickert theory into place knows no bounds does it? All of your arguments are based around the proposition - well it wasn’t impossible that....

              We all know this Fishy. None of us were there. What we are doing is talking about, and weighing up, likelihood’s. And so we have to ask ourselves what was the likelihood of two sounds - the ‘no’ (about which Cadosch was cautious) and the sound of something brushing against the fence (about which he was certain) - being connected to the mutilated corpse which was discovered in the next yard a little over 30 minutes later?

              Even the least suspicious of people would suggest that these noises were probably connected to the corpse.

              On the ‘no.’ Although Cadosch was cautious he still felt that it came from number 29; a few feet away from him. From this I think that we are on safe ground to suggest that the noise came from close by? He knew that it was close and would have been able to have recognised if it had come from a distance away. The police would have checked the neighbours to ask if they had seen or heard anything. They’d have checked their yards to judge any possible escape routes. No one claimed to have been in their yards at that time or to have heard anything around the time that Cadosch was in his yard. So the police would have had a level of confidence that the ‘no’ hadn’t originated from one of the adjacent yards. So this increases the likelihood that the ‘no’ was connected to the murder.

              And if Phillips was correct (which we know was unlikely) this means that there was a horribly mutilated corpse in the yard at the time that the two noises were made


              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • Fishy I can’t be bothered to trawl back but I will if you deny this. You said that there was a gap of a metre between Annie’s body and the fence which made my suggestion of the killer brushing against the fence unlikely.

                The gap was nowhere near a metre. It was less than half that.
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-09-2019, 11:44 AM.
                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 Sam Flynn View Post
                  Sound does indeed carry, but not to the extent that a sound from a few houses distant could be mistaken for the sound of something falling against a fence mere feet, perhaps inches, away.
                  Exactly Sam
                  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

                    I note that the fence was only 5.6 inches high, he stated he didn't look over, but with a fence of that height surely he would have been able to see anyone on the other side, or moving about on the other side, unless of course he and they were less than 5.6 ins tall, and more so if his house had steps leading from the building because at that point on those steps he would have been at least 2 feet higher and would surely have seen anyone on the other side.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    It seems to be taken as a given that when Cadosch was on his steps returning to the house then Annie and her killer were pretty much next to him at the other side of the fence? The implication being that he’d have only needed to have looked to his left and very slightly behind him to have seen the killer.

                    Is it likely that the ripper killed Annie roughly on the spot where her head lay after she was killed? If she’d have fallen to her left she’d have been up against the house. If she’d have fallen to her right she’d have been found with her feet near to the house.

                    Id have thought it far more like that Annie and her killer stood near the fence roughly adjacent to where her feet were when she was found. Or even a little further down. Then when she was killed she fell toward the house. So Cadosch would have had to have turned about face to have even had any chance of seeing Annie and her killer 6 or 7 feet away over the fence. And we know that he didn’t do that because he told us.
                    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

                      The TOD cannot be positively be determined, because Phillips TOD was guesswork, although he did notice the onset of rigor, and again there is no definitive answer as to whether rigor could have set in between 5.20am and 6.30am. It was not a very cold morning, and not forgetting that the body was still partially clothed keeping the body warmth in.

                      As previously stated the rest of the witness testimony is also unsafe to totally rely on.

                      Researchers will readily accept which TOD suits there own beliefs

                      If I had to give my opinion, I would side with Phillips

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      The evidence suggests Chapman was probably unusually thin, i.e. due to being ill with tuberculosis, a muscle wasting condition:

                      "...In most cases, rigor mortis due to a lack of muscle mass in elderly or very thin patients may be delayed or not formed at all."(Mesri et al., 2017, Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.)

                      Comment


                      • The very fact that Cadosche heard anything from the other side of the fence after 5am...(despite the fact he said he couldn't be sure, he hedged, he also stated he had heard things in the yard of 29 before, not on the opposite side of where he was), that in and of itself proves incontrovertibly that a dead woman was not lying there at 5am. Kind of wraps this up neatly if you let the facts speak.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          The very fact that Cadosche heard anything from the other side of the fence after 5am...(despite the fact he said he couldn't be sure, he hedged, he also stated he had heard things in the yard of 29 before, not on the opposite side of where he was), that in and of itself proves incontrovertibly that a dead woman was not lying there at 5am. Kind of wraps this up neatly if you let the facts speak.
                          It is clear that certain posters want the time of death to be 5.20am to suit their beliefs, when there is a clear and unequivocal doubt about this time, and it is clear that no matter what valid points are raised against this TOD, they have clearly made up their minds to readily accept without question this unsafe witness testimony they rely so heavily on.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            It is clear that certain posters want the time of death to be 5.20am to suit their beliefs, when there is a clear and unequivocal doubt about this time, and it is clear that no matter what valid points are raised against this TOD, they have clearly made up their minds to readily accept without question this unsafe witness testimony they rely so heavily on.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            These "beliefs" are not unfounded, Trevor. We have one witness who heard a noise in the vicinity of the murder, and another who by all rights should've seen the body if it was in situ at 5am, measured against a victorian doctor using inexact science. Surely as an ex-copper you would not so readily dismiss these witnesses?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              It is clear that certain posters want the time of death to be 5.20am to suit their beliefs, when there is a clear and unequivocal doubt about this time, and it is clear that no matter what valid points are raised against this TOD, they have clearly made up their minds to readily accept without question this unsafe witness testimony they rely so heavily on.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              It’s strange Trevor that you would side with Phillips whilst in the same post you admit that his estimate was pretty much guesswork?

                              How can a doctors guesswork trump 3 witnesses?

                              Youve also gotten the wrong end of the stick here. Those of us that suggest a 5.20+ TOD are simply following the evidence. I have no theory that needs a later TOD. Neither does HarryD or JohnG or Sam or Etenguy or Michael Richards. Conversely those that actively promote Phillips over the witness do have theories to support (I don’t include yourself in this of course). Fisherman doesn’t want the murder occurring whilst Lechmere was at work and Fishy and Packers Stem both believe that Chapman was killed elsewhere and dumped in the backyard.

                              The evidence weighs heavily in favour of a TOD later than 5.20.
                              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 Harry D View Post

                                These "beliefs" are not unfounded, Trevor. We have one witness who heard a noise in the vicinity of the murder, and another who by all rights should've seen the body if it was in situ at 5am, measured against a victorian doctor using inexact science. Surely as an ex-copper you would not so readily dismiss these witnesses?
                                I have not dismissed them I have simply highlighted flaws in their testimony, which make the testimony unsafe to totally rely on as I keep saying

                                The witness testimony has never been fully tested, and the ambiguities which clearly arose at the inquest were never clarified either at the inquest, or it seems by the police thereafter.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X