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 FISHY1118 View Post
    Where do you get this nonsense from? Do you honestly think that posters take you seriously Fishy? Believe me, you are widely regarded as a joke. Let’s not forget that you are the only poster that believes the Knight story? Who agrees with you on that one? Even Melvyn Fairclough’s doesn’t and he wrote a book supporting it!

    I don’t want to keep naming people that do agree with me Fishy (and who obviously do take my opinions seriously. Researchers like Sam Flynn, Jeff Hamm, Michael Richards, MikeG, Etenguy, Steve Blomer (Elamarna) oh and yes..Paul Begg (acknowledged as one of the world’s leading authorities on the subject.) All agreeing with me Fishy.

    Its also very noticeable that, yet again, you avoid answering the question about Phillips. Why do you choose to agree with him on TOD when it suits you but you disagree with him when he said that Chapman was definitely killed where she was found?


    Believe you .. ....you must be kidding right ?.

    Is that what were calling them now is it '' researchers'' Hmmmm i must be one too. With respect to those mention, were all on the same level where accessing information on the jtr murders are concerned .its just what conclusion we decide to put forward as who what and why and when. So dont kid yourself .

    Why do you disagree with Eddowes when modern medical experts, and there are many of them who say her kidney and uterus and all her mutilation couldnt be done in 5 mins in the dark in 5 mins? .

    Stop trying to convince everybody that the Long Codosch Richardson scenario proves Chapman was killed at 5.30AM . If the above mention names where totally honestly with themselves they would also agree . Wolf Vanderlinen make as plausible case that she was indeed killed earlier than that.
    You yourself made the point that no one agreed with me Fishy. I simply listed the people that do which showed that, as usual, you are wrong. Only you, Fish, and Packers Stem believe that Phillips could have gotten right using the methods that he did (Trevor thinks that he got it right by luck) I discount The Baron of course.

    All three of you have a reason for your belief. You all have a theory which requires an earlier TOD and so we have an explanation for your ignoring the facts.

    Who are the ‘many’ modern medical experts that disagree with Eddowes? You don’t seem to understand the difference between a) having some medical experts disagree, and b) having all medical experts agree that TOD estimates are unreliable and unsafe.

    . Stop trying to convince everybody that the Long Codosch Richardson scenario proves Chapman was killed at 5.30AM
    This is a debate Fishy. What a babyish comment. The evidence overwhelmingly points to a later TOD.


    No answer to this one i see?

    Its also very noticeable that, yet again, you avoid answering the question about Phillips. Why do you choose to agree with him on TOD when it suits you but you disagree with him when he said that Chapman was definitely killed where she was found?
    Amazing isn’t it? On the incredibly difficult subject of estimating a TOD Dr Gandalf Phillips is a magician. He, unlike any other Doctor, can mysteriously deduce a TOD by touch. But, when it comes to the much simpler matter of checking for evidence of a body being killed elsewhere he’s an utter incompetent!?

    Amore perfect example of cherry-picking couldn’t be found.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      And since most of the exchange has now againmoved into horse manure throwing territory, I will once more leave the discussion intermittently and try to be more productive. Last time I did so, I returned with a paper on hand palpation for warmth that disclosed that we are able to tell subtle temperature differences from each other by way of feeling with our hands.
      It is of course a paper that is extremely important in the context we are discussing - the only one I have been been able to find that scientifically breaks down these questions and give us a numerical basis to stand on.
      And what happens? Some posters claim that the paper has no relevance whatsoever to the Chapman discussion -ö which is about whether Phillips would have been able to distinguish between varying temperatures by way of feeling for warth with his hands.

      Ripperology is sometimes ridiculed by other research branches. Small wonder.

      See you guys, take care, wise up and do try to be nice to each other while I´m away.
      I’ll respond to your nonsense later when I have more time.

      What you are doing is your usual trick. One that you’ve done on many a Lechmere thread. You run away when your argument have gotten so riddled with desperation that they have become embarrassing.

      You stand alone (unless you count Fishy, The Baron and PS) whistling in the dark. Every single point that you’ve made has been shredded and kicked into the long grass. You disappeared and came back with your irrelevant dross about palpating which has been shredded too.

      Ripperology has many faults of course but the biggest one is bias due to theories and suspects. And, as I’ve pointed out before, it’s hardly a coincidence that you, Fishy and PS all require an earlier TOD. The rest of us on this thread will maintain an unbiased, evidence led approach.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        And more boring repetitive same arguments over and over again !

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Much in the case cannot be proven. According to you no one can be trusted, everything is unsafe. Or is it simply a case of Trevor speaks....?

        It’s hard to take someone seriously that, whilst agreeing with the unreliability of TOD estimates, would rather trust that Phillips lucky guessed correctly that three witness. Now we are down the rabbit-hole.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Much in the case cannot be proven. According to you no one can be trusted, everything is unsafe. Or is it simply a case of Trevor speaks....?

          It’s hard to take someone seriously that, whilst agreeing with the unreliability of TOD estimates, would rather trust that Phillips lucky guessed correctly that three witness. Now we are down the rabbit-hole.
          Well I choose to keep all my options open until something can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case that's never going to happen if we sit here and argue for ever and a day. As they say you pays your money and you takes your choice, each unto their own. Life is to short to sit here day after day arguing the same points over and over again.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Well I choose to keep all my options open until something can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case that's never going to happen if we sit here and argue for ever and a day. As they say you pays your money and you takes your choice, each unto their own. Life is to short to sit here day after day arguing the same points over and over again.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            The evidence shows us that it’s overwhelmingly likely that Chapman was killed around 5.25/5.30. That should be where the debate ends.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John G View Post

              Thanks Herlock, much appreciated. I really wonder if the coroner hsd prior experience of Inspector Chandler's inefficiency. Rebuking him in such away-publically, to the jury- was certainly remarkable thing to do.
              Yes I wonder how often an Inspector got rebuked in public like that even as far as to question whether he was the right man in charge?

              We can put little weight on what was said in the passageway because we are reliant on Chandlers words alone. It would have been interesting if the Coroner had recalled Richardson and asked him what he thought about Chandler saying that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps? He might have said “yes I did, he must have misheard me.” He might have said “I didn’t think it was important, I just told him that the body definitely wasn’t there.” So basically we have the uncorroborated word of one man. Whereas, at The Inquest under oath, we have Richardson’s words (albeit via a newspaper transcript) Theres just no comparison. We have to go with what we know Richardson said and not one what Chandler said that he didn’t.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post


                Excellent post Fisherman, Long Codosch Richardson , VERY UNRELIABLE AS EVIDENCE AND PROOF THAT CHAPMAN WAS KILLED AT 5.30AM
                Nonsense of course.

                The only unreliable evidence is Phillips TOD. This has been proven beyond doubt. Only you, Fish, The Baron and possibly Packers Stem believe otherwise. Everyone else disagrees with you. Even Trevor accepts the unreliability of Phillips TOD estimate. It’s game over for Phillips. We can very safely disregard his opinion and look to three very plausible witnesses.

                Anyone that says that these witnesses are unreliable based on the utter trivialities that have been mentioned is a fool.

                TOD 5.25/5.30 beyond all reasonable doubt.

                By the way, this is now the fourth time I’ve asked this:

                .
                Its also very noticeable that, yet again, you avoid answering the question about Phillips. Why do you choose to agree with him on TOD when it suits you but you disagree with him when he said that Chapman was definitely killed where she was found?
                Anyone would think that you're too embarrassed to answer Fishy.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Yes I wonder how often an Inspector got rebuked in public like that even as far as to question whether he was the right man in charge?

                  We can put little weight on what was said in the passageway because we are reliant on Chandlers words alone. It would have been interesting if the Coroner had recalled Richardson and asked him what he thought about Chandler saying that he hadn’t mentioned sitting on the steps? He might have said “yes I did, he must have misheard me.” He might have said “I didn’t think it was important, I just told him that the body definitely wasn’t there.” So basically we have the uncorroborated word of one man. Whereas, at The Inquest under oath, we have Richardson’s words (albeit via a newspaper transcript) Theres just no comparison. We have to go with what we know Richardson said and not one what Chandler said that he didn’t.
                  But officers are required to make their pocket books up as soon as practicable after an event, he may have just done that we dont know. He seemingly didn't refer to his pocket book during the inquest. or if he did it wasnt mentioned. I would have expected him to have done so, there was an awful lot he said, perhaps to much to remember verbatim, and to much detail in his testimony. So I suspect he had done so.

                  and not to forget that he would have alreday have made a statement prior to the inquest

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-16-2019, 04:16 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Hi Trevor,

                    " . . . officers are required to make their pocket books up as soon as practicable after an event."

                    Although not pocket book entries, the four extant Metropolitan Police reports, by Warren, Arnold, Long and Swanson, relating to the 30th September 1888 discovery of the Goulston Street graffiti, were all written on the same day, ——6th November 1888, ——five weeks after the event.

                    How long is "as soon as practicable"?

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Last edited by Simon Wood; 09-16-2019, 05:31 PM.
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


                      if the victim is a malnourished, slight, alcoholic female then rigor mortis may be less pronounced than might be expected, and so detection of rigor mortis in such an individual may in fact indicate a longer time having elapsed since death

                      And we have been told to SAFELY discard Dr. Phillips TOD!!


                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi Trevor,

                        " . . . officers are required to make their pocket books up as soon as practicable after an event."

                        Although not pocket book entries, the four extant Metropolitan Police reports, by Warren, Arnold, Long and Swanson, relating to the 30th September 1888 discovery of the Goulston Street graffiti, were all written on the same day, ——6th November 1888, ——five weeks after the event.

                        How long is "as soon as practicable"?

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        As a side issue the rules of evidence differ in inquests to those in criminal trials

                        in a criminal trial it would be for a judge to decide whether or not an officer can use his pocket book to refer to. That would depend on when he said he made the entries in his pocket book

                        the term as soon as practicable has no specific interpretation

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Becasue, you see, what Phillips points to is totally in sync with what we should expect from a woman who is three or four hours dead. It is a smack, bang perfect hit on the normality button - and the jaw of anybody who prefers freak developments.

                          Exactly Fish, brilliant as always!



                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • Pocket book or not this still leaves us with a version of events (the passageway conversation) that is one-sided. Richardson never got the opportunity to either confirm it or say yes he had mentioned sitting on the steps. Chandler might easily have misheard Richardson but even if Richardson didn’t mention sitting on he steps we can’t assume anything sinister. It might simply not have come up. That he went to check the cellar doors and there was definitely no body there might easily have been all that he told Chandler and, at the time, what reason would Chandler have had for pressing for more details?

                            We have to go by he Inquest as the more detailed and only reliable version of events.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                              Exactly Fish, brilliant as always!



                              The Baron
                              Disproven nonsense.

                              Idiotic post.

                              What a waste of space.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Disproven nonsense.

                                Idiotic post.

                                What a waste of space.

                                How can this poster freely attack others like this ?!

                                I have reported his post.


                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X