Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chapmanís death.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Good to see your now making travel arrangements for the movements of Annie Chapman hours before her death
    No, what Iím saying is that she could have gone pretty much anywhere. We canít know where she went. We werenít there. There were no cctv cameras. She could be traced by her mobile phone. She wouldnít have used a cash machine or updated her Facebook page.

    The fact that an impoverished East End prostitutes movements cannot be traced for a while is so unremarkable as to be not worth mentioning apart from by conspiracy theory loons.
    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

      there is every good reason to dismiss them , because their contradictory and unreliable
      Trevorís parrot.
      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

        I can vouch for that, Trevor; Michael's quite the nonconformist in many ways. I should add that, personally, I don't care when the Chapman murder occurred, but the balance of evidence points to a later TOD than Phillips suggests.
        I don't know why I feel good about that Sam, Im sure even salmon get tired of swimming against the current.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Regarding Inspector Chandler. I think Sugden makes a reasonable point in his book: that the Inspector interviewed Richardson at 6:45, shortly before his arrival at the mortuary just after 7:00; he may therefore have been in hurry, and could have misunderstood Richardson as the consequence of a hastily conducted interview.

          Moreover, as far as I know Chandler didn't bother taking any notes, which was a bit remiss of him given the importance of Richardson as a witness. He was therefore recalling the conversation from memory, five days later, at the inquest.

          Comment


          • Iíll throw out a challenge to any poster.

            Please try to decipher Fishyís post #1135
            Hmmmm let me help you Herlock , that post was in direct response to another poster that tried to suggest that Codosch hearing the ''no'' was that he wasn't sure which side of 29, either the left hand side of that particular yard or the right hand side ,go check out the post yourself stop being childish .

            Comment


            • Trevorís parrot.
              Even a parrot could see the contradictory and unreliable testimony of L.C.R . DOESN'T SAY MUCH FOR YOU THEN HERLOCK DOES IT ?

              Comment


              • The evidence of Albert Cadosch is much more problematic. Firstly, assuming he heard the murder being carried out, his timings cannot be reconciled with Mrs Long's, and we can't just assume that one of them must have got the time wrong in order to make the pieces fit.

                And there's another problem. At the inquest he stated that he first heard the word "No", and then several minutes later he heard what sounded like someone falling against the fence. However, the forensic evidence suggests that JtR's MO involved catching his victims completely by surprise, whilst launching a blitz attack. But if Chapman was able to call out in alarm then she couldn't have been caught by surprise. Furthermore, the falling against the fence suggests Chapman falling as the fatal blow was struck (I mean, why would the killer fall against the fence? And how could Chapman fall against the fence if she had been killed minutes earlier?) This last point is important because, having alerted Chapman to his intentions, why would her killer then delay for several minutes before striking?

                Comment


                • the evidence of albert cadosch is much more problematic. Firstly, assuming he heard the murder being carried out, his timings cannot be reconciled with mrs long's, and we can't just assume that one of them must have got the time wrong in order to make the pieces fit.

                  And there's another problem. At the inquest he stated that he first heard the word "no", and then several minutes later he heard what sounded like someone falling against the fence. However, the forensic evidence suggests that jtr's mo involved catching his victims completely by surprise, whilst launching a blitz attack. But if chapman was able to call out in alarm then she couldn't have been caught by surprise. Furthermore, the falling against the fence suggests chapman falling as the fatal blow was struck (i mean, why would the killer fall against the fence? And how could chapman fall against the fence if she had been killed minutes earlier?) this last point is important because, having alerted chapman to his intentions, why would her killer then delay for several minutes before striking?
                  exactly . I wrote a post entirely on this subject , the ''no'' and the noise of hitting the fence are 6 minutes apart, was the killer holding annie chapman up all that time ?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by John G View Post
                    The evidence of Albert Cadosch is much more problematic. Firstly, assuming he heard the murder being carried out, his timings cannot be reconciled with Mrs Long's, and we can't just assume that one of them must have got the time wrong in order to make the pieces fit.

                    And there's another problem. At the inquest he stated that he first heard the word "No", and then several minutes later he heard what sounded like someone falling against the fence. However, the forensic evidence suggests that JtR's MO involved catching his victims completely by surprise, whilst launching a blitz attack. But if Chapman was able to call out in alarm then she couldn't have been caught by surprise. Furthermore, the falling against the fence suggests Chapman falling as the fatal blow was struck (I mean, why would the killer fall against the fence? And how could Chapman fall against the fence if she had been killed minutes earlier?) This last point is important because, having alerted Chapman to his intentions, why would her killer then delay for several minutes before striking?
                    We don't assume that Mrs Long was incorrect, its provable based on the fact that Cadosche heard a voice on the spot where a murder is about to happen involving the woman Long thought she saw. We don't presume that Phillips estimate of TOD is incorrect, its provable based on the fact that Richardson was almost standing on the murder spot just before 5am. Annie Chapman was killed on the spot she is found on, we have one witness that saw that spot just before 5, and one who heard a voice on that spot after 5 and before 5:30. Ergo, Annie is killed within that window of time.

                    There was no "call out" from Annie, there was a soft cry of "no". The thud is heard later. The killer is likely dropping the body he choked to death and bumps the fence with her in the process.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      exactly . I wrote a post entirely on this subject , the ''no'' and the noise of hitting the fence are 6 minutes apart, was the killer holding annie chapman up all that time ?
                      If he started choking her while she stood, maybe her back to him, then that might have taken some time, then he would lower and position the body so he could work...he might reposition her..hence the thud. Making this harder to understand isn't really in anyone interest here, its there, its there on page. Annie killed after Richardson and during Cadosches visits.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John G View Post
                        The evidence of Albert Cadosch is much more problematic. Firstly, assuming he heard the murder being carried out, his timings cannot be reconciled with Mrs Long's, and we can't just assume that one of them must have got the time wrong in order to make the pieces fit.

                        And there's another problem. At the inquest he stated that he first heard the word "No", and then several minutes later he heard what sounded like someone falling against the fence. However, the forensic evidence suggests that JtR's MO involved catching his victims completely by surprise, whilst launching a blitz attack. But if Chapman was able to call out in alarm then she couldn't have been caught by surprise. Furthermore, the falling against the fence suggests Chapman falling as the fatal blow was struck (I mean, why would the killer fall against the fence? And how could Chapman fall against the fence if she had been killed minutes earlier?) This last point is important because, having alerted Chapman to his intentions, why would her killer then delay for several minutes before striking?
                        The issue is that we’re assuming that the ‘no’ was in reaction to being attacked. In reality all that it means as that he heard the word ‘no.’ It could simply have meant that the word ‘no’ was spoken slightly louder than whatever was said. Or that he heard the word because he got closer to the fence. Obviously as none of us were there circumstances can change. Events take affect. It’s not impossible that Annie managed to say ‘no’ before she was attacked.

                        The sound of something brushing against the fence might easily have been the killer brushing a shoulder against the fence as he was over Annie making the mutilations. He might simply have needed to change is position by moving to Annie’s left nearer the fence.

                        These suggestions are far more likely than Cadosch mistakenly hearing ‘no’ from elsewhere when he was standing next to the fence. Surely the police would have spoken to the neighbours and asked if anyone had been in their yards who might have uttered the word ‘no’? Yes, Cadosch was cautious but when we weigh things up we have to come down in favour of the ‘no’ being connected to Annie and her killer.

                        Taken together the overwhelming likelihood, unless we have proof of Cadosch lying (and we don’t) is that Cadosch heard Annie and her killer.
                        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

                          Hmmmm let me help you Herlock , that post was in direct response to another poster that tried to suggest that Codosch hearing the ''no'' was that he wasn't sure which side of 29, either the left hand side of that particular yard or the right hand side ,go check out the post yourself stop being childish .
                          I donít care about the intention of the post Iím talking about how literate it is. Itís unreadable.
                          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

                            Even a parrot could see the contradictory and unreliable testimony of L.C.R . DOESN'T SAY MUCH FOR YOU THEN HERLOCK DOES IT ?
                            Can you point to a witness in this case that cannot be questioned in any way?

                            We have to use judgment.

                            You just donít do that. You start from a position of - Annie Chapman was killed elsewhere in a coach and mutilated by Sir William Gull - and so for you everything has to fit in with that. If it doesnít you desperately seek to discredit it.

                            What is noticeable is that youíve never answered this question. If you are so trusting of Dr Phillips; if you are so sure that he couldnít have been wrong in the complicated matter of estimating TOD, why do you distrust him when he rather inconveniently said this in regard to the much simpler matter of where Annie was killed:

                            ďďCoroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive? - I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.ĒĒ

                            Nice piece of cherry-picking Fishy.
                            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-12-2019, 01:42 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 FISHY1118 View Post
                              exactly . I wrote a post entirely on this subject , the ''no'' and the noise of hitting the fence are 6 minutes apart, was the killer holding annie chapman up all that time ?
                              And because no one is suggesting that he held her up your post is nonsense. If you are trying to suggest that it was impossible or unlikely that the killer brushed up against the fence Iíd say that it was far more likely than it being a dog or a cat or whatever foolishness you try to suggest as an alternative explanation.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • As Steve and I have stressed numerous times (and only Fishy appears to doubt.....weirdly even for him) times need to be taken with a pinch of salt at a time when the average working man or woman wouldnít have owned a watch or a clock. When Dr Phillips said that heíd arrived at 6.30 we can apply a high level of confidence in his accuracy because he would undoubtedly have owned a watch. Ditto Inspector Chandler. But people like Long, Cadosch, Richardson along with other witnesses in the case canít be assumed to have been exactly correct. They might have been, they might not have been. Itís no stretch of reality to suggest that they might have been 5 or 10 minutes out (or even more)out. This surely cannot be denied.

                                Therefore itís certainly not impossible that instead of between 5.30 and 5.35 Long saw Annie and her killer at nearer to 5.25. They then went into the yard and Cadosch heard the Ďnoí at around 5.27 and the brushing against the fence 3 minutes or so later. He then left and heard Spitalfields Church clock sometime after 5.30.

                                Im not saying that this is definitely what happened but itís not an unreasonable possibility. What are we asking? That two people that didnít own watches were out by their timing by 7 or 8 minutes? This is entirely plausible in my opinion, and looking at the poll it looks like the majority who voted agreed. I voted that Long was probably mistaken but the more I think about it the less unlikely it becomes that the three witnesses were all correct.
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-12-2019, 02:05 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

                                Working...
                                X