Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapman’s death.

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

  • 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
    Exactly Jeff but unfortunately you’re discussing the issue with someone who believes in the Knight/Sickert theory (yes....one actually exists) and so he desperately needs Phillips to have been magically correct and the three witnesses all idiots or liars.
    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



      yep still dont get it , silly really
      Jeff and I have both explained the obvious to you. He wasn’t certain. He was cautious.

      BUT NOT ABOUT THE NOISE AGAINST THE FENCE.
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • And so we have three witness who all provide evidence that Chapman died later.
        Circumstantial and unreliable , try again herlock , your losing badly

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
          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
          So she must have been scoffing grapes in a carriage with Sir William Gull.

          The above statement is completely and utterly meaningless. What if she left the district for a while?
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • The above statement is completely and utterly meaningless. What if she left the district for a while?
            Good to see your now making travel arrangements for the movements of Annie Chapman hours before her death

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
              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.
              Laughable drivel.

              What do you mean “it’s virtually the same story?”

              Chandler is the only source of this story.

              How do you know that Chandler didn’t mishear - sat on the steps, for - stood on the steps?

              How do you know that Richardson didn’t just say something like - I went to check on the cellar door and I’m absolutely certain that there was no body there?

              Why would Chandler have bother asking him anything else. This wasn’t an official interview. It took place in a passageway and wasn’t recorded.

              Then, under oath at The Inquest, and without being prompted Richardson tells a more detailed version of what he did. He had no reason to lie or to change his story. This is only suspicious to the terminally desperate.
              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?
                Not using the English language Paul.

                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


                  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
                  I challenge anyone to make sense of this post.
                  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 JeffHamm View Post

                    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
                    I think that’s it’s also worth mentioning again Jeff that caution isn’t really something that we would expect from someone just seeking his 15 minutes of fame, especially considering the fact that there was no one to contradict him. He could have told the police that he was 100& certain.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Laughable drivel.

                      What do you mean “it’s virtually the same story?”

                      Chandler is the only source of this story.

                      How do you know that Chandler didn’t mishear - sat on the steps, for - stood on the steps?

                      How do you know that Richardson didn’t just say something like - I went to check on the cellar door and I’m absolutely certain that there was no body there?

                      Why would Chandler have bother asking him anything else. This wasn’t an official interview. It took place in a passageway and wasn’t recorded.

                      Then, under oath at The Inquest, and without being prompted Richardson tells a more detailed version of what he did. He had no reason to lie or to change his story. This is only suspicious to the terminally desperate.
                      Regards
                      I suggest you go and read what chandler said at the inquest as you clearly dont have a clue what your taking about. come back when you have .

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                        Circumstantial and unreliable , try again herlock , your losing badly
                        Not as unreliable as the provably unreliable Phillips. He can be dismissed by facts and evidence. All the biased posters like yourself can do is desperately nitpick.

                        The three witnesses are all that we have. We have no good reason to dismiss them.

                        Unlike the ludicrous idea that Chapman was killed elsewhere. Something that could easily be disproven without the need for fallible Victorian Forensic knowledge.

                        And Phillips and the police all said that she was undoubtedly killed where she was found.

                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • 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
                          I challenge anyone to make sense of this post.
                          Wow how dumb can some people be really , a waste of 5000 post. clown in the building everyone

                          Comment


                          • the three witnesses are all that we have. We have no good reason to dismiss them.
                            there is every good reason to dismiss them , because their contradictory and unreliable

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              I suggest you go and read what chandler said at the inquest as you clearly dont have a clue what your taking about. come back when you have .
                              [Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
                              [Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No.
                              [Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time? - Yes.
                              By the Jury: The back door opens outwards into the yard, and swung on the left hand to the palings where the body was. If Richardson were on the top of the steps he might not have seen the body. He told me he did not go down the steps.
                              1. Why is Chandler undoubtedly correct? Why couldn’t he have been mistaken? What if he was simply covering his back because he’d failed to press Richardson on where he’d been at the time?

                              2. Why is it impossible that when Richardson said that he didn’t go down the steps that he’d said this in response to be asked whether he’d actually gone into the yard? “Sitting on the steps” is not the same as “gong down the steps.”

                              3.What possible reason could Richardson have had for specifically telling Chandler that he did not go down the steps and then go on to say, under oath, that he did? Why would Richardson have changed his story without needing to?

                              4. It also has to be pointed out that Richardson was adamant that he couldn’t have missed a body had it been there.


                              All efforts to discredit Richardson are pretty desperate stuff. And from someone so hopelessly biased that he allows his desire to promote a theory to cloud his already poor judgment.
                              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

                                Wow how dumb can some people be really , a waste of 5000 post. clown in the building everyone
                                I’ll throw out a challenge to any poster.

                                Please try to decipher Fishy’s post #1135
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X