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

    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.
    I am not suggesting a later time of death, Phillips plumps for a much earlier time of death, and we know that TOD are nothing more than guesswork. But if the witness testimony is unsafe to rely on, and Rigor had set in as Phillips described, and given the fact that is was not a particularly cold morning, and the fact that she was still partially clothed thereby keeping most of the body still warm, then all of that could point to the fact that she was not murdered at 5.20am but much earlier, which would be in line somewhat with the times of the other murders.

    If the killer did kill at 5.20am then he was taking an enormous risk one he had not taken before, or it seems would take again, another important factor to consider when assessing and evaluating all the facts and evidence with regards to TOD.

    As to the witness testimony you have to look at it and ask yourself would it stand up to close scrutiny as it stands, if it was ever used in a trial, the answer is it would not.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      I am not suggesting a later time of death, Phillips plumps for a much earlier time of death, and we know that TOD are nothing more than guesswork. But if the witness testimony is unsafe to rely on, and Rigor had set in as Phillips described, and given the fact that is was not a particularly cold morning, and the fact that she was still partially clothed thereby keeping most of the body still warm, then all of that could point to the fact that she was not murdered at 5.20am but much earlier, which would be in line somewhat with the times of the other murders.

      If the killer did kill at 5.20am then he was taking an enormous risk one he had not taken before, or it seems would take again, another important factor to consider when assessing and evaluating all the facts and evidence with regards to TOD.

      As to the witness testimony you have to look at it and ask yourself would it stand up to close scrutiny as it stands, if it was ever used in a trial, the answer is it would not.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      The criteria that could have caused the earlier onset of rigor where all in evidence.

      A sudden haemorrhaging.
      Excessive mutilation and extensive bleeding.
      A malnourished victim.
      A victim with TB.

      All of these factors (which include 2 that Phillips wouldn’t have seen as relevant in 1888) show us (as every single Forensic expert tells us) that Phillips opinion could only have been correct by luck (and we have an expert quote telling us exactly this.) Phillips TOD should be ignored.

      Richardson and Cadosch stand up to scrutiny with little problem at all. The only issue is whether Long was a) correct. b) mistaken or lying, or c) correct but incorrect on her time. Richardson plies Cadosch plus Phillips invalid opinion gives us an overwhelmingly likely TOD after 5.20.

      The fact that the killer took a ‘larger risk’ would have been more relevant if he’d killed Chapman in the street but he didn’t. He killed her in a backyard where Chapman no doubt had assured him that they would be safe.
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • Richardson said that he arrived just before Dr Phillips did. Phillips arrived at 6.30 and so we can say that Richardson got there 6.20-6.25. He’d have got there, probably announced himself to a Constable, who would have informed Chandler of his presence. Chandler questioned him in the passage way. It’s entirely possible that Phillips arrived whilst they were talking. This interview would hardly have been lengthy or in-depth and, as nothing was written down, we only have Chandler’s word that Richardson didn’t mention sitting on the step. He could simply have mis-heard or mis-remembered what he’d said. The interview might even have been terminated abruptly (or just interrupted) by the Doctors arrival? Richardson might also have been in a panic worrying that the deceased might have been his mother?

        Is it all impossible, unlikely or unreasonable that Richardson might have said something like:


        “I was here at 4.50. I went to the backyard to check on the cellar doors and there was definitely no body in that yard.””


        What else would Chandler have needed to ask? He could see that Richardson wasn’t blind. He might have asked:


        ““Are you certain about that?””


        To which he’d reply:


        ““Absolutely.””


        This could very well have been the main gist of what was said on the subject. There’s simply nothing suspicious about Richardson not fully explaining the position. He didn’t need to. Chandler had the information that he needed. Chapman wasn’t there at 4.50. There’s nothing to suggest that Richardson was questioned again or that any doubt was thrown onto his version of events.


        Then onto the Inquest...


        Richardson testified before Chandler and the Coroner didn’t challenge his version but simply asked him what he’d done. Richardson simply proceeded to tell him that he’d sat on the step. He wasn’t compelled to do this. He wasn’t responding to a challenge to his version of events. Richardson, under oath, was simply giving a slightly fuller, more detailed version of what happened. If Richardson had actually just stood on the steps to check the cellar doors it would have been no problem for him. If challenged about how he might have missed a body from the top step he’d have had two very easy and very obvious options:


        Option 1: He could have said: “yes, maybe I could have missed her if she was behind the door?”

        Or,

        Option 2: He could have said: “no, I pushed the door wide open as I stood on the top step so I couldn’t have missed her.”


        But no, he elects to tell them the full story which, incidentally, placed him in that yard with a mutilated corpse and in possession of a knife. With no prompting and under no pressure. Why would he have done that if he wasn’t forced into it? Because he was simply giving a fuller explanation of what happened.

        The attempts to discredit Richardson border on desperation. He in all likelihood gave Chandler just what he needed to no in a short and informal interview in a busy passageway and then, under oath at The Inquest (and without being forced into it) he gave a fuller more detailed account.


        And he was absolutely adamant that Chapman wasn’t there and we don’t have a single good reason to discount or to try and discredit him.
        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-09-2019, 04:10 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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

          The criteria that could have caused the earlier onset of rigor where all in evidence.

          A sudden haemorrhaging.
          Excessive mutilation and extensive bleeding.
          A malnourished victim.
          A victim with TB.

          And there are other factors that might have prevented the onset of rigor with the time period you suggest, nothing is conclusive

          All of these factors (which include 2 that Phillips wouldn’t have seen as relevant in 1888) show us (as every single Forensic expert tells us) that Phillips opinion could only have been correct by luck (and we have an expert quote telling us exactly this.) Phillips TOD should be ignored.

          And who is to say he didnt guess right. Brown and Sequeria guessed right in Mitre Square

          Richardson and Cadosch stand up to scrutiny with little problem at all. The only issue is whether Long was a) correct. b) mistaken or lying, or c) correct but incorrect on her time. Richardson plies Cadosch plus Phillips invalid opinion gives us an overwhelmingly likely TOD after 5.20.

          The fact that the killer took a ‘larger risk’ would have been more relevant if he’d killed Chapman in the street but he didn’t. He killed her in a backyard where Chapman no doubt had assured him that they would be safe.
          You are entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to theirs. You interpretation of standing up to close scrutiny is miles apart from mine

          131 years on are we really expected to readily accept without question all that has been left behind from 1888?

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            You are entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to theirs. You interpretation of standing up to close scrutiny is miles apart from mine

            131 years on are we really expected to readily accept without question all that has been left behind from 1888?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            No we shouldn’t but you tend to go the opposite way and suggest that no one should ever be trusted. There’s little to scrutinise in Richardson and even less in Cadosch. Phillips can safely be ignored. The possibility of luck isnt worth comsidering.
            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

              Being making this exact point for ages , HERLOCK TAKE NOTE .
              And of course it holds no water.

              See post #1029
              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

                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
                Actually there is no doubt that it was after 5:15 and before Davis finds her. 2 witnesses, 1 in the same yard beforehand, make that a certainty. The only problem here is that the obvious and already established is being questioned...again, not that there is any doubt within the evidence.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  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
                  I have to agree on this point.

                  Phillips estimate of TOD is clearly unsafe to rely upon for the whole host of reasons discussed in this thread.

                  Long's testimony is not convincing - she states she saw a couple who she took little notice of and then, four days later I believe, confirms that it was Annie Chapman she saw after viewing the corpse.

                  Cadosche heard two noises, a verbal 'No' and a few minutes later a noise which sounded like something brushing/falling against the fence. We do not know what caused the noise he heard. He was not sure from which yard the word No originated, so we can only speculate who uttered the word. He was surer that the noise against the fence came from the yard at number 29. Since he was used to noises from that yard, he didn't investigate. We can speculate that it was Annie or her murderer but cannot be certain. It is unlikely someone else made the noise without seeing the body. Are there other explanations for the noise? Could it have been a dog for instance? Unknown.

                  Richardson's statements should be compelling that there was no corpse in the yard at 4.50am. However, there are two contradicting elements to his story.
                  1. He not only failed to tell Chandler he sat on the step to remove leather from his shoe, according to Chandler, he actually said he did not go down the steps.
                  2. When he brought a useless knife to the court, he then changed his story to say he didn't remove the leather from his shoe until later, after borrowing a knife from a work colleague. So he sat on the step and tried to remove leather from his shoe, the knife being blunt but he wasn't successful and then did it later.
                  This does not discount the main thrust of his evidence but it does cast some doubt on what he tells us. He seems to be reluctant to tell the full story until challenged - maybe he was trying to protect himself from being accused but then why come forward at all? It leaves a level of confusion and suspicion.

                  It leaves us not knowing what the window for the time of death was with certainty. I tend to think the three witness statements taken together do suggest a 5.20 am to 5.30 am TOD but by no means certain - I am mostly swayed by Richardson, who for whatever gave a confused story but was clear about the lack of a corpse in the yard at 4.50am.


                  Comment


                  • So, this might be a sign of a deranged mind, but I always saw Phillips touching the intestines like, a cop might feel the hood of a car that’s been turned off. It doesn’t tell you the exact time the engine stopped running, but it may tell you if the person who turned it off is still in the neighborhood.
                    The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Errata View Post
                      So, this might be a sign of a deranged mind, but I always saw Phillips touching the intestines like, a cop might feel the hood of a car that’s been turned off. It doesn’t tell you the exact time the engine stopped running, but it may tell you if the person who turned it off is still in the neighborhood.
                      sorry wrong place
                      The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                        I have to agree on this point.

                        Phillips estimate of TOD is clearly unsafe to rely upon for the whole host of reasons discussed in this thread.

                        Long's testimony is not convincing - she states she saw a couple who she took little notice of and then, four days later I believe, confirms that it was Annie Chapman she saw after viewing the corpse.

                        Cadosche heard two noises, a verbal 'No' and a few minutes later a noise which sounded like something brushing/falling against the fence. We do not know what caused the noise he heard. He was not sure from which yard the word No originated, so we can only speculate who uttered the word. He was surer that the noise against the fence came from the yard at number 29. Since he was used to noises from that yard, he didn't investigate. We can speculate that it was Annie or her murderer but cannot be certain. It is unlikely someone else made the noise without seeing the body. Are there other explanations for the noise? Could it have been a dog for instance? Unknown.

                        Richardson's statements should be compelling that there was no corpse in the yard at 4.50am. However, there are two contradicting elements to his story.
                        1. He not only failed to tell Chandler he sat on the step to remove leather from his shoe, according to Chandler, he actually said he did not go down the steps.
                        2. When he brought a useless knife to the court, he then changed his story to say he didn't remove the leather from his shoe until later, after borrowing a knife from a work colleague. So he sat on the step and tried to remove leather from his shoe, the knife being blunt but he wasn't successful and then did it later.
                        This does not discount the main thrust of his evidence but it does cast some doubt on what he tells us. He seems to be reluctant to tell the full story until challenged - maybe he was trying to protect himself from being accused but then why come forward at all? It leaves a level of confusion and suspicion.

                        It leaves us not knowing what the window for the time of death was with certainty. I tend to think the three witness statements taken together do suggest a 5.20 am to 5.30 am TOD but by no means certain - I am mostly swayed by Richardson, who for whatever gave a confused story but was clear about the lack of a corpse in the yard at 4.50am.


                        Good post Etenguy.



                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • Regarding rigor mortis. I would point out that the 1-6 or 2-6 hour range for the onset of rigor only applies in normal circumstances. For instance, rigor can be greatly influenced by temperature and colder environments promote and even prolong rigor: see, for example, Gill-King, 1997. Then again, in very thin people rigor may be delayed or not formed at all, however, it is possible that too much weight loss can also have the opposite effect! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5721493/
                          Last edited by John G; 09-10-2019, 07:36 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            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
                            We should treat eyewitnesses with a healthy degree of scepticism because humans are infallible and make mistakes. However, we have three independent witnesses whose testimony contradicts the findings of the doctor, even if their testimony is not harmonious with each other. We need Long, Cadosch and Richardson to have all been wrong, lying, or wilfully blind for the medico's estimated TOD to stick.
                            Last edited by Harry D; 09-10-2019, 09:06 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                              We should treat eyewitnesses with a healthy degree of sceptism because humans are infallible and make mistakes. However, we have three independent witnesses whose testimony contradicts the findings of the doctor, even if their testimony is not harmonious with each other. We need Long, Cadosch and Richardson to have all been wrong, lying, or wilfully blind for the medico's estimated TOD to stick.
                              Good point Harry.

                              And let’s face it even the timings are not massively out and this was at a time when very few poor people owned clocks or watches and many even relied on a Constable to get them up for work in the morning. We are only talking about a difference of 15 minutes or so after all. To use Fish’s favourite word, would it have been ‘freakish’ for Cadosch or Long to have been 15 minutes out in their estimate of the time. There are no doubt posters who are quite happy to say that Cadosch, for example, could have been mistaken about what he’d heard but who would appear horrified at the entirely reasonable suggestion that he might have simply got up 15 minutes later than he thought? Or that Mrs Long might have been 15 minutes out either.

                              Here’s another suggestion. Why couldn’t Cadosch and Long both have been wrong about their timings but only by around 7 or 8 minutes. So we would have Long seeing the two people at around 5.25 and Cadosch hearing the ‘no’ at around 5.28. And so for the sake of accepting the reasonable possibility of an error of a mere 7/8 minutes we would then had three witness that tied up.
                              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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Good point Harry.

                                And let’s face it even the timings are not massively out and this was at a time when very few poor people owned clocks or watches and many even relied on a Constable to get them up for work in the morning. We are only talking about a difference of 15 minutes or so after all. To use Fish’s favourite word, would it have been ‘freakish’ for Cadosch or Long to have been 15 minutes out in their estimate of the time. There are no doubt posters who are quite happy to say that Cadosch, for example, could have been mistaken about what he’d heard but who would appear horrified at the entirely reasonable suggestion that he might have simply got up 15 minutes later than he thought? Or that Mrs Long might have been 15 minutes out either.

                                Here’s another suggestion. Why couldn’t Cadosch and Long both have been wrong about their timings but only by around 7 or 8 minutes. So we would have Long seeing the two people at around 5.25 and Cadosch hearing the ‘no’ at around 5.28. And so for the sake of accepting the reasonable possibility of an error of a mere 7/8 minutes we would then had three witness that tied up.
                                We are back to my little pet subject of timings.
                                When are people going to realise, NONE of these times are pricise, nor can they be used for meaningful comparisons.

                                There was No Syncronizied time full stop.
                                People would go by Clocks on building, church bells, clocks in homes and maybe watches.
                                All of which could indicate a different time, at precisely the same moment.

                                Long and Cadosch appear to be about 10 minutes out. So what?
                                why do we assume that the brewery clock was accurate( thats not even allowing for the often suggested possibility of it being the quarter past strike), or that Cadoschs time was accurate.

                                my rule of thumb following on from Bucks Row, is at least 5 minutes either way on timings.

                                We continue to take these times as if they are set in stone, THEY ARE NOT!

                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X