Chapman’s death.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Been an absolute disgrace.

At least your hear to inject your superior intellect and raise the standard then

Pardon me for posting evidence from medical authorities and trying to apply logic and reason to the assessment of the witnesses in the face of an absence of logic and reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

Does that sound like a prostitute soliciting a client,or something else.

Do prostitutes and clients have a standard script that they employ? We have absolutely no way of knowing what they were talking about.

Perhaps she was feeling ill and didnt intend on finding a customer. The ripper met her and after a brief chat he persuaded her. Simple.

[DJA]

And of course the ripper would have gotten into a scuffle in the Street because why wouldn’t he want to have drawn attention to himself. Another ‘theory’ shaping the evidence on your part I’m afraid. Chapman was a prostitute who would have taken her client into the yard.

They had already drawn attention to themselves.

He got her off the street swiftly.

It takes a second to apply a choke hold.

The evidence has shaped my theory.

You prefer to ignore the facts, so that you can indulge yourself in endless nonsense,as continually evidenced on this thread.

Chapman might be the woman of your fantasies of prostitutes,doubt many others have similar "tastes".

[Ozzy]

This thread has been perfectly readable by the way.

Got to agree with DJA and Harry D. Quoting below my earlier post #630.

All I've learned from this thread is that you all suck at using the quote function.

Tell me about it.
There are often (like - all the bloody time actually) threads on this forum with posts that I want to read but I can't because I just can't work out if the poster is saying something themselves or quoting.
What I mean is I can't work out if the poster is quoting or saying something themselves. Then sometimes the same poster will change how they quote. In some posts they quote by using bold (why?) and then a couple of days later I read another post by the same person where they quote using italic (again why?).
Then you get the posts which are all in bold. Why? If you make you're whole post in bold, you might as well just forget using bold. The reason to use bold is to make certain words/sentences stand out to the rest of your post. With a whole post in bold you defeat the reason of why you should use bold.
Now I know some people are not up to scratch with computers, let alone how often software like forum software such as vbulletin change, but you can preview your post before posting it. I'm not sure if it still exists but I'm sure there used to be a test forum here as well. I know some other forums have a test area.

[DJA]

At least YOU'RE HERE to inject your superior intellect and raise the standard then

Pardon me for posting evidence from medical authorities and trying to apply logic and reason to the assessment of the witnesses in the face of an absence of logic and reason.

It is not my fault that I was born with an IQ within the top half percentile.

In fact,you have meticulously ignored expert medical literature.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They had already drawn attention to themselves.

No, they had possibly been seen. Standing on the street in conversation isn’t drawing attention to themselves.

He got her off the street swiftly.

No evidence for that.

It takes a second to apply a choke hold.

It also takes a second to say ‘yes’ and walk through a door with your killer.

The evidence has shaped my theory.

You have no evidence as far as I can see.

You prefer to ignore the facts, so that you can indulge yourself in endless nonsense,as continually evidenced on this thread.

I never ignore facts. I’ve been debating the forensic evidence and witness statements what the hell is wrong with this. It’s the subject of the thread. Not the promotion of your suspect. A thread that I started by the way.

Chapman might be the woman of your fantasies of prostitutes,doubt many others have similar "tastes".

Nice insult. Pretty low. Not worth responding too.

You’ve suddenly taken a different tone with me even though I’ve said nothing to justify it. No problem though. You are a person with a theory and all must be shaped to fit the theory. This is a Chapman TOD thread (I know this because it says so at the top of the thread - the thread that I started) and Chapman’s TOD is what I’ve been discussing. To do so I’ve employed the testimony of Forensic authorities. I’ve also tried to apply reason and logic to the assessment of the witness statements (totally in keeping with the topic of the thread by the way) you seem to find that somehow disgraceful although I’m happy to say that Paul Begg (amongst others) agree with me.

I’m quite happy to vacate the thread so that you can re-name it “the promotion of Dave’s suspect and whether the facts fit it.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

. It is not my fault that I was born with an IQ within the top half percentile.

You hide it well.

In fact,you have meticulously ignored expert medical literature.

A ludicrous statement.

[DJA]

You hide it well.

Something many of us do,especially when dealing with the likes of yourself.

[The Baron]

It is not my fault that I was born with an IQ within the top half percentile.

In fact,you have meticulously ignored expert medical literature.

We have been told that you have a theory trying to support (such as anyone who disagrees with anyone nowadays) Which one is it ?!

Thanks.


The Baron

[John G]

[Coroner] Were they talking loudly? - They were talking pretty loudly. I overheard him say to her "Will you?" and she replied, "Yes." That is all I heard, and I heard this as I passed. I left them standing there, and I did not look back, so I cannot say where they went to.

Does that sound like a prostitute soliciting a client,or something else.

What would be the alternative?

[DJA]

What would be the alternative?

Before Long was within earshot of a what became a loud "conversation' .......

"I know you murdered Nichols and if you do not hand over money,I'll tell the next copper."

"Will you?"

"Yes"

That was ~ 5.33am. Reckon Sutton/Jack slipped a strangle hold on her and quickly moved her off the street.
Doubt there was another word from her after that.

Sutton was 53 and about 5'3" which roughly tallies with Long's guesstimate and the Goulston Street writing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Something many of us do,especially when dealing with the likes of yourself.

One day you are posting a ‘hi Herlock’ and agreeing with a point that I’ve made the next you begin a rant against me simply because you disagreed with a statement that I made about the murders occurring where the bodies were found. Something that probably 95%+ would accept. It seems rather schizophrenic since I’ve never insulted you. But.....if that’s how you are.

I’d ask you to go back through the thread a find a post or two that were not in keeping with the theme of the thread. Then again, I wouldn’t bother because you won’t be able to. I’ve posted sourced evidence after sourced evidence (as have other posters like JohnG, Jeff, Etenguy for example) to show that Phillips TOD estimate is unreliable....in the face of a wave poor logic and theory-based bias. All in keeping with the theme of the thread. I’ve also discussed the witnesses by trying to apply reason again in the face of theory-based shoehorning and bizarre statements like “I accept that Phillips TOD was unsafe but I still prefer it over witnesses!” Again all in keeping with the theme of the thread.

And you find this objectionable because it interferes with you discussing your theory and whether the evidence fits it or not. If you stuck by the general way of doing things here you would have moved your theory discussion to another thread rather than intruding the subject on a thread which I begin to discuss Chapmans TOD.

Ill leave you to your thread. I hope everyone agrees with your theory.

[The Baron]

One day you are posting a ‘hi Herlock’ and agreeing with a point that I’ve made the next you begin a rant against me simply because you disagreed with a statement that I made about the murders occurring where the bodies were found. Something that probably 95%+ would accept. It seems rather schizophrenic since I’ve never insulted you. But.....if that’s how you are.

I’d ask you to go back through the thread a find a post or two that were not in keeping with the theme of the thread. Then again, I wouldn’t bother because you won’t be able to. I’ve posted sourced evidence after sourced evidence (as have other posters like JohnG, Jeff, Etenguy for example) to show that Phillips TOD estimate is unreliable....in the face of a wave poor logic and theory-based bias. All in keeping with the theme of the thread. I’ve also discussed the witnesses by trying to apply reason again in the face of theory-based shoehorning and bizarre statements like “I accept that Phillips TOD was unsafe but I still prefer it over witnesses!” Again all in keeping with the theme of the thread.

And you find this objectionable because it interferes with you discussing your theory and whether the evidence fits it or not. If you stuck by the general way of doing things here you would have moved your theory discussion to another thread rather than intruding the subject on a thread which I begin to discuss Chapmans TOD.

Ill leave you to your thread. I hope everyone agrees with your theory.

You are the one who change the topic, you asked Fishy why he accepts Phillips TOD and doesn't accept him saying she was killed where she was found.

You change the topic and you ask people not to defend their opinions ??!


Incredible!!



The Baron

[DJA]

You change the topic and you ask people not to defend their opinions ??!


Incredible!!



The Baron

Used to work with a Psychologist/Criminologist who complied with a Scotland Yard request to go over and help them out.

Wouldn't waste his time on Herlock.

Wouldn't reply myself,if I wasn't confined to bed.

[The Baron]

That the doctors correctly identified the time of death in the case of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes needs to be examined on their own merits because factors not featuring in the case of Chapman may have influenced their conclusion, and whilst you may have evaluated each case individually you'll hopefully forgive me if I don't plough through more than fifteen hundred messages to see if you have or not. However, it does seem to be a fact that modern medical opinion is that the methods employed by Dr Phillips to establish time of death were unreliable in the extreme and should not be relied on. Arguing that the doctors got the time of death right in the case of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, doesn't really carry weight against the sources cited that strongly suggest (some would argue proves) that Phillips' methods didn't get it right in Chapman's case.

And you satisfy yourself by weakening Phillips who was active on the ground in spite of his experience, and yet you go all the way to defend Macnaghten who was not there, with no expeience, and who didn't do the slightest of research into his opinions.


I would like to know how you deal with your resources.


Richardson didn't enter the yard, didn't look behind the door.

Long didn't take much notice to them.

Cadosch was not sure where the voice came from.

Those are facts, those are history Mr. Begg, can you change them ?!


The Baron