Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Iím nowhere near convinced that Richardson deliberately withheld the fact that he sat on the steps from Chandler. I still feel that he might just have said something like - I went to check the cellar doors and I can tell you for certain that there was no body there.

    What reason would Chandler have had to pursue the matter for more detail. Especially during a conversation in the passageway at the beginning of an investigation with Doctor arriving at around the same time?

    Equally couldn't he just as easily have mistaken or misheard - I sat on the steps, for - I stood on the steps?

    As youíve both said why would he lie? Iíve suggested previously that he might not have wanted to have placed himself in that yard with a knife? But he could have easily left out the knife part and said that heíd sat on the step and smoked a pipe. Thereís just no reason for him to have lied. An innocent explanation is easily the likeliest.
    That's possible Herlock - not too far away from what I think, I don't necessarily believe he deliberately lied, just a poor communicator based on his answers at the inquest.

    Comment


    • Cadosch is even stronger. He said that he heard no from number 29 but was cautious.
      Please retract this false statement , its misleading

      Comment


      • Embarrassing.

        You need to stop typing and start reading.

        Forensic expert after Forensic expert. The most respected authorities on the subject. Not ripperologists but published experts. And thereís not a single one Fishy....not one....that supports Phillips. Every single one says that he could not have made an accurate TOD estimation. This is black and white. Itís a non-argument perpetuated by the dishonest. Phillips can be dismissed. He wasnít a magician. He didnít have magic hands. He could not have accurately estimate Chapmanís TOD. Why are you desperately continuing this? Are you a Forensic expert? Is Trevor? Is Fish? No but every single one of the people that Iíve quoted is.

        Phillips is finished. Anyone that says otherwise is simply allowing bias to lead them into embarrassing positions.


        What is embarrassing Herlock is you my friend you . You definitely need to pay more attention when responding to someones post . You have totally ignored what i posted, instead you chose to again waffle waffle waffle about forensic experts blah blah blah . Its been done to death by you over and over , but like always you just refuse to except what is right there in front of you, and that is Long Codosch and Richardson cannot and should not be accepted as proof the time of Chapman death was 5.30am. For god sake man give up , Wolf, Trevor and myself have explain it to you , start listening.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          ...

          And on that basis I suggest TOD cannot be conclusively be proven, but I do accept that everyone is entitled to their own opinions its how those opinions are formed

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          And so you are in agreement with everyone else in that nobody is saying the ToD is 100% determined. Rather, people have been looking at the totality of the evidence that we have available and from that stating what their opinions are concerning the most likely ToD. Look, if you're going to roll the dice, and I say the most likely roll will total 7, that doesn't mean I'm positive you'll get a 7, it just means compared to any other total (6 for example), 7 is the most likely. People are acknowledging the concerns that go with eye witness statements, and have noted and considered the variation in statements given. They just seem to be willing to say that, on the basis of what we do know, and what witnesses testified to, the most likely ToD is around 5:30. I don't think anyone is saying it was definitely at 5:30. But to argue for a different time requires throwing out the witness statements, and even you agree that Phillip's estimate is to be ignored, and therefor to pick any other time is to do so with absolutely nothing in the way of evidence - and surely you must agree that would be even more unsafe.

          - Jeff

          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''. Albert Cadosch


            See the difference Herlock, Just the ''think'' and ''cannot say'' changes everything , make sure you use them next time ok .

            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''. Albert Cadosch


              See the difference Herlock, Just the ''think'' and ''cannot say'' changes everything , make sure you use them next time ok .
              He cannot say on which side of what it came from? Which side of #29?, in which case he's just saying "It was from #29 yard, but which side of the yard I couldn't be sure", but it's still #29 all the same.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Annie Chapman's Final Hours
                " It is considered difficult to believe that a woman who was so well known in the district cannot be traced for four hours."


                - The Star
                13 September, 1888

                Comment


                • On the day of the murder, , John Richardson made no mention of sitting down on the steps and cutting a piece of leather from his shoe. This is virtually the same story that he told Chandler and thus some doubt is thrown on Richardson's later version of events. There is even more damning evidence which goes against Richardson's story.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    He cannot say on which side of what it came from? Which side of #29?, in which case he's just saying "It was from #29 yard, but which side of the yard I couldn't be sure", but it's still #29 all the same.

                    - Jeff
                    There's no other way of interpreting what Mr Cadosch said, is there?

                    Comment


                    • He cannot say on which side of what it came from? Which side of #29?, in which case he's just saying "It was from #29 yard, but which side of the yard I couldn't be sure", but it's still #29 all the same.

                      So you think it was a ''no'' in 29 but with side of 29 ? hmmmmmmmm not sure that one will fly , not sure why anyone would want to try explain which side of the yard a ''no'' came from either left or right , especially in Codoschs case seems irreverent really

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                        Please retract this false statement , its misleading
                        Its a statement of fact. Canít you read? He thought number 29 but was cautious and said that it could have come from elsewhere.

                        ď. As I returned towards the back door 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.Ē
                        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
                          Embarrassing.

                          You need to stop typing and start reading.

                          Forensic expert after Forensic expert. The most respected authorities on the subject. Not ripperologists but published experts. And thereís not a single one Fishy....not one....that supports Phillips. Every single one says that he could not have made an accurate TOD estimation. This is black and white. Itís a non-argument perpetuated by the dishonest. Phillips can be dismissed. He wasnít a magician. He didnít have magic hands. He could not have accurately estimate Chapmanís TOD. Why are you desperately continuing this? Are you a Forensic expert? Is Trevor? Is Fish? No but every single one of the people that Iíve quoted is.

                          Phillips is finished. Anyone that says otherwise is simply allowing bias to lead them into embarrassing positions.


                          What is embarrassing Herlock is you my friend you . You definitely need to pay more attention when responding to someones post . You have totally ignored what i posted, instead you chose to again waffle waffle waffle about forensic experts blah blah blah . Its been done to death by you over and over , but like always you just refuse to except what is right there in front of you, and that is Long Codosch and Richardson cannot and should not be accepted as proof the time of Chapman death was 5.30am. For god sake man give up , Wolf, Trevor and myself have explain it to you , start listening.
                          Youíre posts are a joke Iím afraid. The whole crux of the debate is that it has been proven that Phillips simply cannot have predicted the TOD accurately unless by luck. This might be inconvenient to you but itís a proven fact nonetheless. Therefore Dr Gandalf Phillips cannot and should not be used. His opinion is now redundant.

                          And so we have three witness who all provide evidence that Chapman died later. The effort that has be expended to try and discredit them by you and others has been frankly an embarrassment to reason, logic and common sense.

                          No, we cannot say this for certain. No one has said this is 100% certain certain. But itís overwhelmingly likely.

                          All you are doing Fishy is embarrassing yourself and the subject by your wish-thinking and very obvious bias. You, Fish and PS all need an earlier TO. To myself, Jon, JohnG, Etenguy, Sam, HarryD, PaulB, Jeff and others the TOD has no bearing on a theory.

                          And lets face it, who takes anyone seriously that believes the Knight/Sickert theory?​​​​​​​
                          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
                            ''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''. Albert Cadosch


                            See the difference Herlock, Just the ''think'' and ''cannot say'' changes everything , make sure you use them next time ok .
                            Yes. He admitted to not being certain. As Iíve said numerous times. But he still said:

                            . but I should ''THINK'' it came from the yard of No. 29.
                            So he obviously favoured number 29.

                            And when it came to the noise he was absolutely certain.

                            Grow 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 PaulB View Post

                              There's no other way of interpreting what Mr Cadosch said, is there?
                              I seem to recall some talk awhile back where people were suggesting he was possibly referring to a different yard, as in which side of his own yard (29 side or the other direction). Sound can be localized, but there are times when it is hard to do so, and I don't know if his yard was one of those difficult locations or not. I was just wondering if there was more context. As it reads in just those statements, it seems like he's being unsure of exactly where in the yard of 29 it came from rather than unsure if it was #29 (as in, I can't say for sure it was from the area where the woman was found dead - but surely, if someone was in the yard at 5:30, everybody believes Annie was there by that time, either long dead or in the process). His "I think ..." doesn't really sound like he's unsure, he's just not overstating things or being overly assertive.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment



                              • cadosch is even stronger. He said that he heard no from number 29 but was cautious.

                                yep still dont get it , silly really

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X