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 Abby Normal View Post
    to me the most reasonable explanation is the killer and chapman were in the back yard, with chapman thinking she was soon about to be having a go. they are talking, cadoshe catches the word no as part of the conversation, and then later either hears the killer or chapmans body brushing up against the fence after the rippers rendered her unconscious. whats the big controversy?
    This is how I see it Abby. Let’s face it how many times do we hear a conversation whee one word is said slightly louder than the rest for whatever reason? For emphasis say? But when it comes down to it Albert Cadosch, who we have no reason to suspect of lying, said that he heard the word (cautiously, agreed) and the noise (definitely) coming from a yard where the murder took place and within the 70 minute time-slot between Richardson and Davis. The chances of these events being unconnected are, as you said, slim to none.
    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



      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?

      The Chandler SCAM !!!!





      Anything, we will turn every policeman to charlatan just to avoid giving Fisherman support to his Theory!

      Unbiased gentelmen!

      Listen to the voice of an unbiased poster!



      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by John G View Post

        Firstly, because Cadosch's evidence is not consistent with Mrs Long. Secondly, becuse he said that he heard a fall against the fence, not simply someone brushing the fence (I have already highlighted why this is important.)

        And what of Caroline Maxwell? It appears she made a serious mistake of identification, or was lying. However, unlike many witnesses, who were either drunk or disreputable, she was a pilar of the community.
        A man kneeling to Annie’s left might very easily bump against the fence with his right shoulder with a fair bit of weight. A remember, in The Times it was also described as - something seemed suddenly to touch the fence.

        If you are at one side of a wooden fence and you hear a brief noise against the other side of that fence surely we can’t suggest that we would be able to recognise what caused it?
        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 John G View Post
          As I've long argued: it's a mistak to view this case from a twenty-first century perspective. The reality is, there's so many questionable witnesses in this case-Packer, Scwartz, Maxwell, Hutchinson, Lawende, PC Mizen etc- it's easy to conclude that, for many Whitechapel residents of this period, lying, attention seeking, selling stories to the press, seemed to be part of the culture; almost a way of life.
          Packer...obviously false, Schwartz..not important enough to include at the hearing, Maxwell...warned at the Inquest her evidence is contrary to all other evidence including the autopsy, Hutchinson.... discredited days after giving his statement, Lawende...said he couldn't identify the man, even after seeing his face, within 2 weeks from the statement, I wont bother with Mizen...my point being that the witnesses you mention have no bearing on the respective cases. Cadosche and Richardson do, and they were not discredited, they were included at the Inquests and they, among all the witnesses mentioned were closer to the actual murder site at the time of the murder is committed than anyone else.

          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Not using the English language Paul.
            There are times when it doesn't appear that some people are using the English language.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              there is every good reason to dismiss them , because their contradictory and unreliable
              You are attempting to show that their statements are unreliable. You can't say the statement can be dismissed because they are what you have yet to demonstrate. So the only reason you have for dismissing them is that they are contradictory. However, that's not a good reason fo dismissing them unless you can show why their contradictoriness (if there is such a word) makes them unreliable. After all, it could be argued that we'd expect a degree of contradiction, be it in what Richardson said to Chandler and later at the inquest or in the Long/Cadosch timings.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                I disagree that there is a strong possibility that Kelly knew she was being attacked. In fact, it's even possible she was murdered whilst she was asleep in bed. Moreover, cries of "Oh Murder" which I assume is what you're referring to, were common, and the witness couldn't be at all certain where the cry originated from.
                1. Kelly almost certainly had defence wounds, so she at least woke up (if she was asleep to begin with) and realised she was being attacked;

                2. Interestingly, both Prater and Lewis, in reporting the cry of "Murder", said that "such cries" were often heard... but does that mean that the word "murder" was cried, or that cries in general were common at night? I've never questioned this before, but perhaps neither Prater nor Lewis literally meant that the word "Murder" was shouted out frequently... in fact, I'd be surprised if it did;

                3. Be that as it may, the very fact that a cry of "Murder" was heard in Miller's Court within hours of Kelly's murder is rather more likely than "Murder" just happening to be cried out and sounding as if it came from within the Court/Kelly's room;

                4. On that last point, Lewis indicated that the cry seemed to come from the deceased's room, and Prater thought that the cry emanated from the "back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Miller's Court"... now, Kelly's room was at the back of the lodging-house and her windows indeed looked into Miller's Court.
                Last edited by Sam Flynn; 09-12-2019, 08:01 PM.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  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.
                  I agree. I was just wondering if I was missing some other interpretation of his statement, where his uncertainty was about whether or not the noise came from #29's yard. To me, it looks like he thinks it came from #29 (meaning, he has no reason to doubt that it came from there), but he can't be sure if it came from the exact location of where the body was found.

                  Fishy's just trolling you Herlock, just ignore him.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    I agree. I was just wondering if I was missing some other interpretation of his statement, where his uncertainty was about whether or not the noise came from #29's yard. To me, it looks like he thinks it came from #29 (meaning, he has no reason to doubt that it came from there), but he can't be sure if it came from the exact location of where the body was found.

                    Fishy's just trolling you Herlock, just ignore him.

                    - Jeff
                    Im used to it by now Jeff. I have 2 of them!

                    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 John G View Post

                      Firstly, because Cadosch's evidence is not consistent with Mrs Long. Secondly, becuse he said that he heard a fall against the fence, not simply someone brushing the fence (I have already highlighted why this is important.)

                      And what of Caroline Maxwell? It appears she made a serious mistake of identification, or was lying. However, unlike many witnesses, who were either drunk or disreputable, she was a pilar of the community.
                      so one of them was off a few minutes and its a rather innocuous statement isn't John for an attention seeker? so what are you saying hes a liar or just mistaken or what?
                      Last edited by Abby Normal; 09-12-2019, 08:31 PM.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John G View Post
                        For anyone who would look uncritically at Cadosch's testimony, here's an account that he gave to a newspaper:

                        "On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say 'No' . Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found." (Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 9 September 1888)

                        Isn't this remarkable? I mean, in Cadosch's inquest testimony there's no mention of a scuffle (which I maintain is inconsistent with JtR's MO), no mention of anyone falling heavily on the ground.

                        As I've long argued: it's a mistak to view this case from a twenty-first century perspective. The reality is, there's so many questionable witnesses in this case-Packer, Scwartz, Maxwell, Hutchinson, Lawende, PC Mizen etc- it's easy to conclude that, for many Whitechapel residents of this period, lying, attention seeking, selling stories to the press, seemed to be part of the culture; almost a way of life.

                        well I think your going a little over board here. the only questionable witnesses I see in your list is packer-obvious attention seeker/liar, Maxwell-probably mistaken, had the wrong mary and hutch-attention seeker (just possible killer). the rest really have no reason to question them IMHO.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

                          1. Kelly almost certainly had defence wounds, so she at least woke up (if she was asleep to begin with) and realised she was being attacked;

                          2. Interestingly, both Prater and Lewis, in reporting the cry of "Murder", said that "such cries" were often heard... but does that mean that the word "murder" was cried, or that cries in general were common at night? I've never questioned this before, but perhaps neither Prater nor Lewis literally meant that the word "Murder" was shouted out frequently... in fact, I'd be surprised if it did;

                          3. Be that as it may, the very fact that a cry of "Murder" was heard in Miller's Court within hours of Kelly's murder is rather more likely than "Murder" just happening to be cried out and sounding as if it came from within the Court/Kelly's room;

                          4. On that last point, Lewis indicated that the cry seemed to come from the deceased's room, and Prater thought that the cry emanated from the "back of the lodging-house where the windows look into Miller's Court"... now, Kelly's room was at the back of the lodging-house and her windows indeed looked into Miller's Court.
                          good analysis Sam-totally agree.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John G View Post
                            For anyone who would look uncritically at Cadosch's testimony, here's an account that he gave to a newspaper:

                            "On coming back I heard some words which I did not catch, but I heard a woman say 'No' . Then I heard a kind of scuffle going on, and someone seemed to fall heavily on the ground against the wooden partition which divided the yard, at the spot where the body was afterwards found." (Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper 9 September 1888)

                            Isn't this remarkable? I mean, in Cadosch's inquest testimony there's no mention of a scuffle (which I maintain is inconsistent with JtR's MO), no mention of anyone falling heavily on the ground.

                            As I've long argued: it's a mistak to view this case from a twenty-first century perspective. The reality is, there's so many questionable witnesses in this case-Packer, Scwartz, Maxwell, Hutchinson, Lawende, PC Mizen etc- it's easy to conclude that, for many Whitechapel residents of this period, lying, attention seeking, selling stories to the press, seemed to be part of the culture; almost a way of life.
                            Well, now we're a whole step further from Richardson though. The Newspaper reports, particularly outside the reporting of the inquest testimonies (even there there are changes in wording), appear to be quite embellished. Lloyds articles have often been, how shall we say, more dramatic than the inquest testimony when they were able to interview witnesses alone. This could be due to the style of questioning by the reporter, or just how the reporters recorded what they were told (as in, jot down major points, then generate appropriate quote). Now, if all the reporter had to work on was "I heard someone say "no"", "I heard something make a noise against the fence", then the quote above could easily be how the reporter wrote it (meaning, there's no reason to presume that Cadosch said exactly what is reported as a quote from him). In fact, the above quote fits with a paraphrase of what Cadosch does say, embellished for marketability.

                            the other possibility, of course, is simply that in an unofficial context (as in not in a legal court), one's account is likely to also be embellished - we're all storytellers after all. And if he heard someone say "No", and he heard something against the fence, well, something against the fence would be the sounds of a struggle, and so forth. Basically, even this more dramatic telling is entirely consistent with what he says in more official settings, although it implies more, it does not actually require more events to have happened, just a looser constraint on how dramatic the wording is.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              Well, now we're a whole step further from Richardson though. The Newspaper reports, particularly outside the reporting of the inquest testimonies (even there there are changes in wording), appear to be quite embellished. Lloyds articles have often been, how shall we say, more dramatic than the inquest testimony when they were able to interview witnesses alone. This could be due to the style of questioning by the reporter, or just how the reporters recorded what they were told (as in, jot down major points, then generate appropriate quote). Now, if all the reporter had to work on was "I heard someone say "no"", "I heard something make a noise against the fence", then the quote above could easily be how the reporter wrote it (meaning, there's no reason to presume that Cadosch said exactly what is reported as a quote from him). In fact, the above quote fits with a paraphrase of what Cadosch does say, embellished for marketability.

                              the other possibility, of course, is simply that in an unofficial context (as in not in a legal court), one's account is likely to also be embellished - we're all storytellers after all. And if he heard someone say "No", and he heard something against the fence, well, something against the fence would be the sounds of a struggle, and so forth. Basically, even this more dramatic telling is entirely consistent with what he says in more official settings, although it implies more, it does not actually require more events to have happened, just a looser constraint on how dramatic the wording is.

                              - Jeff
                              But when the various reports along with the official testimony throw up conflicts we have no choice but to accept that they are then unsafe because we have no means of corroborating which one is the real truth, in the case of Richardson we are left to ask based on the conflicts in his recorded testimony both from the inquest and in newspaper reports

                              Did he stand on the step, with the door open and just look to the right at the lock on the cellar door, and seeing it was still in place go back in the house, if he did he could have missed seeing the body because the open door would have obstructed his view of where the body was lying.
                              Did he sit on the step and should have seen the body
                              Did he sit and cut leather from his boot
                              Did he throw open the door allowing it to bang against the fence for Cadosh to hear

                              These conflicts are real along with Cadosch and Mrs. Long`s, it matters not in the grand scheme of things whether they are looked at from a modern-day legal perspective, or from a historical perspective, they are real and have to be looked at in the same way. It is ridiculous researchers trying to guess what the witness might have meant to say, or what he meant by what he said.

                              Collectively based on what we have with all three witnesses, the testimony is unsafe for us to be able to conclusively establish a TOD.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk




                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Collectively based on what we have with all three witnesses, the testimony is unsafe for us to be able to conclusively establish a TOD.
                                Based on what modern science tells us about body rigor mortis and body temperature (both in terms of how it's measured and post mortem rates of cooling), we know that Dr Phillips' estimation of TOD was unsafe.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X