John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

That's what I was wondering. According to Cadosch there must have been at least 5 minutes between the "No" and the fall against the fence. As Fishy said, Jack worked from the body's right and there is no reason the speculate that he changed that method and tried to squeeze between the body and the fence. Jack wasn't known for being chatty once he got the victim alone. He blitz attacked and finished the job quickly.

Cheers, George

Two things that spring to mind, in the past on this thread, sketches have been posted as to the decsription of the fence which in one sketch was shown to be no more than 6 feet in height and was of the open pannneled type as per the picture here. If that had been the case then Cadosh should have been able to see through the panels into No 29 and would have been able to see anyone the other side, and he could have looked over the fence. The photos we associate with No 29 would not appear to be the

original fence from 1888, so more food for thought as to Cadosh and his testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

[GBinOz]

Yep.

Reckon you've watch too many of Trev's videos.

Blitz
4. (transitive)
to attack suddenly and intensively

[FISHY1118]

Two things that spring to mind, in the past on this thread, sketches have been posted as to the decsription of the fence which in one sketch was shown to be no more than 6 feet in height and was of the open pannneled type as per the picture here. If that had been the case then Cadosh should have been able to see through the panels into No 29 and would have been able to see anyone the other side, and he could have looked over the fence. The photos we associate with No 29 would not appear to be the

original fence from 1888, so more food for thought as to Cadosh and his testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Also Trevor , the 3 sketchers ive recently posted all show the fence with gaps in them . I just dont see 3 different peoples sketchers that were done right after the murder that could possibly be anything other what they show . A fences with Apertures all along their lengh.

3 People drew it exacly the same way.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I find myself at a loss as to how you can deduce that the Chapman murder bore no resemblance to the Eddowes murder. How were they so completely different?

Sequeira, with a PMI of not more than a quarter of an hour, assessed the ToD as not earlier than 1:40. Brown, with a PMI of 30-40 minutes, assessed the ToD as between 1:40 and 1:50. For medical methods that were so completely unreliable, I'm not seeing large margins of error here, or evidence of over estimating in either of the two estimates. Brown described Eddowes body as "quite warm - no rigor mortis". Phillips said Chapman's body was "cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing". The mutilation to the abdomens of both bodies were almost identical, but it is proposed that there is only 20-30 minutes for Chapman to loose all body heat, except for a small residual under the intestines, and for rigor to commence. I am not convinced.

The science of surveying includes the study of error theory. Small sample groups are notoriously unreliable due to accumulation of errors and compensating errors. A model equation such as Jeff produced when tested on one small sample of data can produce a markedly different result when a second small sample is tested. It is only when significant data observation sizes, three figures or better, are examined that true figures and margins of error consolidate. That's what I was taught, anyway.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I meant that the ToD calculation was different. The cases of Eddowes, Stride, and Nichols had ToD calculated taking into account fresh blood still not coagulated, and so the loss of temperature was relatively unimportant - the murders had to be just minutes previously, not hours.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes herlock we have all established that about the good Dr , just as it is a fact that witnesses can also be unrealiable . Is not as much a contest between the two, as ive regularly suggested ,one doesnt prove the other wrong or right .

In this case we have to try determind each peice of evidence on it own merits and form ones own opinon regarding t.o.d .

Some will support the witnesses ,some will support the Dr, thats what the evidence is for so people are free to make up their own minds.

True in part. Chapman could have been murdered earlier and we can’t prove otherwise but we can’t use Dr. Phillips to do it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tha fact remains we dont have any idea what was in the yard that could have been responsible for the noise, As is the fact we cant be sure beyond a doubt it was Annie Chapman. The uncertainty and ambiguious overall evidence you and i and others all rely on makes for that assessment.

We certainly can’t be completely certain that the ‘no’ and the ‘noise’ came from Chapman or her killer. But there was nothing physically in that yard that could have made that noise unless it had left by the time of the murder. So we are left with animal or human.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that you claim in your senario that he somehow brushed up against the fence which like everthing else in this incident, cant be proven as fact. There for its just speculation.

Your entitled to think that , However my suggestion worked then and it still works now .

But your suggestion just say ‘something else’ made that noise and w can’t come up with a reasonable suggestion for that apart from Harry’s suggestion. Whereas we know for a fact that Annie and her killer were in that yard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, pleeeeze,

This is all you need to see to realise the lack of value of her testimony:

Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.
[Coroner] At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them.

Three days after the event she convinces herself that she had seen Chapman—a woman she’d never seen before and glimpsed for a few seconds in unremarkable circumstances.

Cheers, George

How can we say that her testimony has no value George? The police took her to see the body in the mortuary and she identified her. Could she have been mistaken? Absolutely. Without a doubt she could have been mistaken. But she might not have been. Would the police today have completely dismissed her testimony? They would have been remiss if they had done. I’ll make this point George….

It appears to be quite acceptable to suggest that a woman, probably with things on her mind as she walked along, briefly saw a couple a mistook the woman for Annie Chapman convincing herself of this over three days ‘thinking time?’

Fair enough…

But why is it then unacceptable to suggest that after the same 3 days, a woman walking along, probably with things on her mind, couldn’t have misheard or misremember the distant bells that she took her time from?

Is it right or fair to accept the possibility of one but not the possibility of the other George?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's what I was wondering. According to Cadosch there must have been at least 5 minutes between the "No" and the fall against the fence. As Fishy said, Jack worked from the body's right and there is no reason the speculate that he changed that method and tried to squeeze between the body and the fence. Jack wasn't known for being chatty once he got the victim alone. He blitz attacked and finished the job quickly.

Cheers, George

I don’t think that we can be confident of 5 minutes George when we read the research about peoples estimation of times and timing. Did he blitz attack? I don’t think that’s a certainty is it? But as we weren’t there George we can’t know what position he was in or exactly what he did or how he did it. Isn’t it possible that he might for example have moved Annie’s arm which fell against the fence?

[FISHY1118]

True in part. Chapman could have been murdered earlier and we can’t prove otherwise but we can’t use Dr. Phillips to do it.

Yes but there is no need to use either , as both as has been shown are unrelieable and ambiguious and throught with uncertainty.

[FISHY1118]

We certainly can’t be completely certain that the ‘no’ and the ‘noise’ came from Chapman or her killer. But there was nothing physically in that yard that could have made that noise unless it had left by the time of the murder. So we are left with animal or human.

Well no one can say for certain it was. or what it wasnt . All we know for certain is it was a noise of some sort that remains undetermind .

By Cadoaschs own testimony he didnt know either .

[FISHY1118]

But your suggestion just say ‘something else’ made that noise and w can’t come up with a reasonable suggestion for that apart from Harry’s suggestion. Whereas we know for a fact that Annie and her killer were in that yard.

Yes thats fact, they were in the yard alright, but its not been established as ''fact'' that it was 5.20 am, or a fact that cadosch heard Annie and her killer at that time same time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dear Sherlock,

You clearly do not understand the difference between evidential basis and supposition.

How on earth can your theory be taken seriously?

A large part of your theory is built upon supposition, invention and Long/Cadosch/Richardson 'trivial errors' (in your own words).

Conclusion:

Your case has collapsed, the jury aren't listening anymore: instead they're having a cup of tea and a slice of cake and are talking about the hitherto unheard of quality of jam making at the Sussex Women's Institute, and the judge is about to throw the case out of court and put you in the dock for contempt of court due to wasting the court's time and expending taxpayer's money on a whim.

Case dismissed. The judge has no time for this spellbinding nonsense and simply says: "get out of my court".

Initially I thought, no problem…just a poster that disagrees with my opinion on this, nothing wrong with that, he’s certainly not alone. But my opinion has changed. You are not someone to be taken seriously as this kind of drivel shows. For a start why should I take someone serious who is so childish that he thinks that he’s making sone kind of kindergarten point in refusing to use my correct username?

It now looks like you are the only poster on here still saying that Phillips TOD estimate was reliable so there’s only one person not listening. You remind me of Stan Laurel in that Laurel and Hardy movie where he’s left to guard the trench and is still there 20 years after the war was over!

Ive tried explaining in words that a toddler would understand but it’s not penetrating is it? I’ve posted more, proper scientific evidence on the unreliability of estimating digestion which I apologise for because I know that you hate those pesky facts which cause you to lie awake at night in order to come up with more and more desperate and laughable ways of trying to dismiss it. You have also come up with the most bizarre piece of ‘thinking’ that I’ve heard for a long time which is - because we have no written or spoken evidence that Chapman ate a second time we have to assume that she didn’t - where the hell did you dig that pile up from? An exciting story for you…

I went out yesterday (like Annie) and I ate a piece of toast before I went in the company of another person. I was out a bit longer than Annie but, like Annie I didn’t go out with the intention of eating (I went out for two reasons) Whilst I was out I ate an unplanned sausage roll. Someone can confirm that I ate the toast but not the sausage roll. So looking at that scenario, Chief Inspector Meetwood Flack would deduce that I couldn’t possibly have eaten the sausage roll! We have to rigidly assume that the sausage roll eating could not have occurred! Flack of the Yard triumphs again with his flawlessly penetrating logic

This is where we are at. We cannot prove that Chapman was killed earlier or later. We can only say for absolute certain that she was dead by 6.00 and alive at around 1,45. We cannot use the medical evidence to prove either an early or later TOD due to the unreliability of those methods. We are left to assess the witnesses. We cannot assume that they were honest or accurate. We cannot assume that they lied or were mistaken. So when we discuss Chapman’s TOD we can logically only do it in terms of the witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two things that spring to mind, in the past on this thread, sketches have been posted as to the decsription of the fence which in one sketch was shown to be no more than 6 feet in height and was of the open pannneled type as per the picture here. If that had been the case then Cadosh should have been able to see through the panels into No 29 and would have been able to see anyone the other side, and he could have looked over the fence. The photos we associate with No 29 would not appear to be the

original fence from 1888, so more food for thought as to Cadosh and his testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How unbelievably stupid would the police have had to have been not to have said “hold on Mr Cadosch, we can clearly see all through this fence via these considerable gaps. Can you explain this?”

Clearly the fence at the time had no such gaps. It had one gap as mentioned. The clue is in the words Trevor. Why would one gap have been specifically been mentioned if there were loads of them.