John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

that assumes you want to have reasonable debate as opposed to just regurgitating your talking points and latin phrases ad nauseum.

It is ad nauseam, not ad nauseum.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It wouldn’t have been if she’d eaten it?

That requires two conjectures: that she did not finish eating her food at the lodging house, but took some with her, and that she ate all the remaining food she had before she was murdered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I meant Chapman, not Eddowes.

It wouldn’t have been if she’d eaten it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

None was found on her.

I meant Chapman, not Eddowes.

[Abby Normal]

There's a post on this thread which explains why eye witness testimony is held in such high esteem and why it shouldn't be.

That post relates to articles, assessing actual eye witness testimony.

It's time you stopped simply posting broad, uninformed opposition to this and instead do some reading.

That assumes you want to learn as opposed to parrot outdated and demonstrably flawed concepts, of course.

Here's a starter for you:

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

ive never said that eyewitness testimony is the best kind of testimony nor have I said its infallible.

its time you stopped making counter arguments to points never made and instead actually read peoples posts.

that assumes you want to have reasonable debate as opposed to just regurgitating your talking points and latin phrases ad nauseum.

you may also want to consider your flawed methodology in assessing evidence in isolation while ignoring the strength of it all together. Ill spell it out for you. Three independent witnesses that corroborate each other for a later TOD.

[Herlock Sholmes]

None was found on her.

John Kelly appeared to think that there was:

[Coroner] When did you see her next morning? - About eight o'clock. I was surprised to see her so early. I know there was some tea and sugar found on her body.

• 2 small blue bags made of bed ticking.
• 2 short black clay pipes.
• 1 tin box containing tea.
• 1 tin box containing sugar.
• 1 tin matchbox, empty.
• 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained.
• 1 piece coarse linen, white.
• 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered.
• 1 piece red flannel with pins and needles.
• 6 pieces soap.
• 1 small tooth comb.
• 1 white handle table knife.
• 1 metal teaspoon.
• 1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings.
• 1 ball hemp.
• 1 piece of old white apron with repair.
• Several buttons and a thimble.
• Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, one in the name of Emily Birrell, 52 White’s Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man’s flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men’s boots (both addresses are false.)
• Printed handbill and according to a press report- a printed card for ‘Frank Carter, 305 Bethnal Green Road.

• Portion of a pair of spectacles.
• 1 red mitten.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It isn't unreasonable to think Chapman found a client and decided to get another baked potato instead, on the assumption it was easy pickings tonight, she'll just find another punter in the next hour.

And what happened to her small change?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We know that Catherine Eddowes had tea and sugar on her person so why couldn’t Annie have had some item of food?

None was found on her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Argument from Ignorance fallacy:

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

Perhaps we should start a cut and paste quotes thread?

You’re inability to deal with details is not being hidden by a repeated attempt to make yourself look clever.

You’re quote isn’t appropriate by the way. I’m not claiming anything as a fact. Back to the Wikipedia drawing board you go.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are references in the testimony to Chapman's visits to the kitchen during that visit to the lodging house, as well as to her eating potatoes.

That suggests that at least some of the eating was done in the kitchen.

Does it suggest that she intended to eat potatoes in the street?

She even had a pint of beer brought to the house.

Is it not obvious that she deliberately made use of her visit to the house to eat and drink there, rather than in the street?

It’s obvious that she ate potatoes at the lodging house. That’s all.

I’ve tried explaining this patiently PI but you’re determined to try and shape things in a certain way but it’s impossible to do so when we’re faced with an absence of information. Of course we can only suggest possibilities and ‘what if’s’ but as long as they don’t stretch the boundaries of plausibility then we can’t dismiss them.

We know that Annie, like the other victims, was about as poor as can be.
We know that she was under nourished and in poor health.
We know that she had no consultant supply of money.
We know, from the point above, that she never knew where her last meal was coming from.
We know her last recorded food were the potatoes.
We don’t know how substantial that meal of potatoes was.
We know that women of Annie’s situation carried everything that they owned around with them because they had no other option.
We know that Catherine Eddowes had tea and sugar on her person so why couldn’t Annie have had some item of food?

So what if’s

Annie enters the logging house with 2 potatoes. She eats one and keeps the other which she eats later.
Annie later meets up with a friend who, seeing the state she’s in shared a crust of bread with her.
Annie entered the lodging house with a potato and another item (like a crust of bread) She eats the potato then eats the crust later.
Annie meets a guy who wants sex but has no money. He offers to pay her in bread. We hear of this occurring in the literature on the case. She thinks that bread is better than nothing for a woman who never knows where her next food is coming from.
Annie stole some small item of food left in the lodging house kitchen.

Now note PI. I’m claiming none of these as a fact. They are very normal, non-far-fetched examples. We can’t say what she did or didn’t do after leaving the lodging house.

[Wickerman]

Don't question the genius Wick. He clearly gets upset.

Hopefully, he'll get it out of his system and settle down.

[Wickerman]

It depends on your objective.

In the event your objective is to say: "it's possible and so it's equally valid, no matter how plausible", then of course you're correct.

But, we're trying to come up with the likely here, at least I think we should be.

As said to Jeff, employing statistics in order to make a point is an entirely valid argument providing I'm presenting accurate statistics and the premise follows.

Your argument that goes: "it's possible in the sense anything is possible, and so I have an equally valid argument", doesn't wash.

What you need to do is demonstrate how and why my statistics and the premise that follows, is false.

We're trying to discern is the likely and the unlikely here. Nothing can be proven at this remove.

And then, you adopt vague rhetoric: "much of what these type of killers do is unique". What exactly do you mean in relation to a murderer who runs round killing people in the same way other murderers run 'round killing people?

The reason I point that out isn't to suggest it is equally likely, it's sufficiently possible that we can't rule it out.

If we are still talking about Chapman's baked potato, she left the lodginghouse fully intending to pick up a client to earn her bed for the night.
If you recall, Nichols made a similar argument, she said she'd had her doss money several? times that night, or words to that effect.

It isn't unreasonable to think Chapman found a client and decided to get another baked potato instead, on the assumption it was easy pickings tonight, she'll just find another punter in the next hour.
We need to fill that 3+ hours with something, and since we know her intentions it isn't unreasonable to believe she obtained her 4d for the bed pretty easy.

The other small detail that we don't mention is Donovan said she was eating potatoes, not a potato (Daily Telegraph). Does that mean she had one or two in her hand, and put one in her pocket for later?
Doesn't that potentially solve the problem of the partly digested potato in her stomach?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And how do you classify you’re claim that she wouldn’t have eaten during that period when that comes from an absence of information too?

Argument from Ignorance fallacy:

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Accidental post.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yet you keep claiming that she wouldn’t have eaten.

There are references in the testimony to Chapman's visits to the kitchen during that visit to the lodging house, as well as to her eating potatoes.

That suggests that at least some of the eating was done in the kitchen.

Does it suggest that she intended to eat potatoes in the street?

She even had a pint of beer brought to the house.

Is it not obvious that she deliberately made use of her visit to the house to eat and drink there, rather than in the street?