What Does It Mean to "Know" Someone?

[DJA]

Amazing resemblance to the family members as remembered by Barnett. John two would have been the son.

"Paddy"s research.

No death or marriage records for her.

Baptised at St Leonards,Shoreditch where Sutton became Health Officer.

[caz]

Sometimes I am not sure whether I am the only sober poster here. Your suggesting that Mary had to know the person she lets in was capable of, and interested in killing her...right? Not content with what was written, that she knew him intimately, you have to infer that should mean she knew he wanted to kill her too....just how far are you willing to go to make people believe your imaginative arguments? What defenses are you prepared to use....are there any standards you follow with regards to reason, rationality? Or is this really about suggesting anything.... no matter how ludicrous rather than admitting this position of yours is all simply your opinion?

In the other thread you say that the first 2 Canonical were "similar" cases, where its abundantly clear they were in every pertinent way, almost identical murders. Rather than just losing an argument youd rather appear obtuse?

I dont dislike you Caz, despite all the flimsy rebuttal Ive seen from you over the years here and the mocking tone and imaginative counter arguments when dealing with an argument you cant win. Cant say Id like to have a pint together, but no real bias here. So Im appealing to the intellect that I perceive through the madness...dont counter argue with a rebuttal that is solely your own opinion. Back it up using something for god sakes...when I say Strides Murder is unlike ANY other Canonical Murder and therefore is most probably not by the same man, I have access to oodles of information already on page and easily accessible that supports that. Telling me what Mr Banana in Oklahoma did to his 25 victims of all ages and genders isnt a counter argument..its just a revelation that you dont actually have a viable counter.

Our opinions differ, Michael. Simple as. If that makes me, and all those who think like me on this case, intellectually inferior to you, or mad, then my opinion is that we're done here.

Enjoy being the only one in step.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Unlike our good friend Michael here I imagine I would greatly enjoy having a pint or two with the very smart and witty Ms. Caz. I reckon we would have ourselves a good ole time with lots of jolly. Hope it can become a reality someday.

c.d.

Thank you kindly, c.d.

I would love to have a pint or two with you, and I could teach you more British expressions like "big girl's blouse".

Love,

Very smart and witty Ms. Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Our opinions differ, Michael. Simple as. If that makes me, and all those who think like me on this case, intellectually inferior to you, or mad, then my opinion is that we're done here.

Enjoy being the only one in step.

Love,

Caz
X

I have never claimed that someone here was intellectually inferior Caz, nor have I claimed that Im seeking to be the de facto source about anything. Ive said that people who choose to believe something without any evidence to back them up have essentially wishful perspective. Serial killers change Michael, so that explains Liz Stride...serial killers evolve, so that explains Marys indoor party...just because Israel isnt recorded as having any evidence of his statement entered as Inquest evidence doesnt mean it wasnt,....its not unbelievable that someone who claimed to be a friend of Mary Kellys would wait 4 days to come forward, nor that his description would be so very remarkable considering his distance and the fact it was in the middle of the night...its unlikely that multiple killers using knives were active in London 1888 other than Jack...

None of these positions above have any kind of support within the known evidence from the Canonical Group murder investigations.

I dont know about you, but I studied these cases for many years to be able to knowledgeably discuss the issues with people who have done the same, so having opinion and choice of perspective as counter arguments to known facts is quite a let down.

So, on the above...

1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows why a Killer that has obviously chosen to kill women he doesnt know out on the streets while they are soliciting would then seek out women alone in their own rooms, half undressed in their own beds, in a small courtyard off the beaten path.
3. Provide evidence that the statement Israel Schwartz made to the police was in any way entered for formal review at the Inquest into the manner of her death.
4. Show evidence that proves Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, was there that night as he claimed, and saw someone out with Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, the last time of a sighting of her by someone who actually did know her.
5. Show, using evidence, why Jack the Ripper crimes were unique by virtue of the fact they were committed using knives.

Ill help...

1. There is no supporting evidence.
2. There is no supporting evidence.
3. There is no supporting evidence
4. There is no supporting evidence
5. Abdominal mutilations were unique, knife crimes were not.

These are the same kinds of useless rebuttals I get time and again for statements that I make while using supporting evidence. And you wonder why I get snooty...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I have never claimed that someone here was intellectually inferior Caz, nor have I claimed that Im seeking to be the de facto source about anything. Ive said that people who choose to believe something without any evidence to back them up have essentially wishful perspective. Serial killers change Michael, so that explains Liz Stride...serial killers evolve, so that explains Marys indoor party...just because Israel isnt recorded as having any evidence of his statement entered as Inquest evidence doesnt mean it wasnt,....its not unbelievable that someone who claimed to be a friend of Mary Kellys would wait 4 days to come forward, nor that his description would be so very remarkable considering his distance and the fact it was in the middle of the night...its unlikely that multiple killers using knives were active in London 1888 other than Jack...

None of these positions above have any kind of support within the known evidence from the Canonical Group murder investigations.

I dont know about you, but I studied these cases for many years to be able to knowledgeably discuss the issues with people who have done the same, so having opinion and choice of perspective as counter arguments to known facts is quite a let down.

So, on the above...

1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows why a Killer that has obviously chosen to kill women he doesnt know out on the streets while they are soliciting would then seek out women alone in their own rooms, half undressed in their own beds, in a small courtyard off the beaten path.
3. Provide evidence that the statement Israel Schwartz made to the police was in any way entered for formal review at the Inquest into the manner of her death.
4. Show evidence that proves Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, was there that night as he claimed, and saw someone out with Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, the last time of a sighting of her by someone who actually did know her.
5. Show, using evidence, why Jack the Ripper crimes were unique by virtue of the fact they were committed using knives.

Ill help...

1. There is no supporting evidence.
2. There is no supporting evidence.
3. There is no supporting evidence
4. There is no supporting evidence
5. Abdominal mutilations were unique, knife crimes were not.

These are the same kinds of useless rebuttals I get time and again for statements that I make while using supporting evidence. And you wonder why I get snooty...

A pretty good list, Michael.
And why bother getting snooty? - if you can ask questions of a fundamental nature that no one can give a good answer to (or even attempt to), you've won the argument by default. May as well smile at that point.

What happened to Stride's coins? No answer.

[DJA]

Meh.

I've actually worked with a Criminologist.

[c.d.]

A pretty good list, Michael.
And why bother getting snooty? - if you can ask questions of a fundamental nature that no one can give a good answer to (or even attempt to), you've won the argument by default. May as well smile at that point.

What happened to Stride's coins? No answer.

Of course these questions can all be answered. But because of the lack of evidence in this case some of the answers will involve speculation or what simply appears to be more probable. And unfortunately sometimes the answer will be I don't know because only the killer knows the answer. But why even attempt to provide answers when those answers will simply be dismissed

But here is an even bigger and more important question -- when did these boards become a contest to be won by default or otherwise?

c.d.

[c.d.]

What exactly is the question regarding Stride's coins? Do we know for a fact that she had them? And are you asking for known facts or just seeking speculation?

c.d.

[DJA]

We know she had a sixpence and went to two hotels .....

[c.d.]

We know she had a sixpence and went to two hotels .....

Ok. I can't help but think that this is some sort of trap question. What exactly is being asked?

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I have never claimed that someone here was intellectually inferior Caz, nor have I claimed that Im seeking to be the de facto source about anything. Ive said that people who choose to believe something without any evidence to back them up have essentially wishful perspective. Serial killers change Michael, so that explains Liz Stride...serial killers evolve, so that explains Marys indoor party...just because Israel isnt recorded as having any evidence of his statement entered as Inquest evidence doesnt mean it wasnt,....its not unbelievable that someone who claimed to be a friend of Mary Kellys would wait 4 days to come forward, nor that his description would be so very remarkable considering his distance and the fact it was in the middle of the night...its unlikely that multiple killers using knives were active in London 1888 other than Jack...

None of these positions above have any kind of support within the known evidence from the Canonical Group murder investigations.


1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows why a Killer that has obviously chosen to kill women he doesnt know out on the streets while they are soliciting would then seek out women alone in their own rooms, half undressed in their own beds, in a small courtyard off the beaten path.
3. Provide evidence that the statement Israel Schwartz made to the police was in any way entered for formal review at the Inquest into the manner of her death.
4. Show evidence that proves Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, was there that night as he claimed, and saw someone out with Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, the last time of a sighting of her by someone who actually did know her.
5. Show, using evidence, why Jack the Ripper crimes were unique by virtue of the fact they were committed using knives.

Ill help...

1. There is no supporting evidence.
2. There is no supporting evidence.
3. There is no supporting evidence
4. There is no supporting evidence
5. Abdominal mutilations were unique, knife crimes were not.

Go on then, I'll have a stab.

1 - Geographically small location, over a short period, seemingly motiveless random killing, very low class victim out alone at night, not obviously a domestic or the result of an established animosity. With throat cut. Not throttled or bludgeoned.

2 - Cite evidence he wouldn't. It's impossible to state as fact either way without actually knowing the killer, his motives, personality etc.

3 - No evidence. He was interviewed and was cited in The Star, but as stands, no evidence he was involved personally or that his information was used.

4 - Bit of a three part question. A) No evidence of personal acquaintance, just Hutch's word. Equally, no evidence otherwise, as in counter statements from people who did know her. B) I'll waver here, again, no statement he was elsewhere, just the Sarah Lewis statement that is matched to Hutch's, but I'll give you this one. No evidence. C) No evidence.

5 - No evidence.

Not totally at odds with you Michael, but it's always worth bearing in mind that if we only have one side of a story, one witness, we can't corroborate them, but just as equally, they can't be dismissed as having no supporting evidence. Unless two people witness one event, I can't see how that would be any different? I find looking for 100% proof or it's no evidence at all is far too black and white. We don't have enough left to us to make those kind of judgements.

​​​​​

[caz]

1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows why a Killer that has obviously chosen to kill women he doesnt know out on the streets while they are soliciting would then seek out women alone in their own rooms, half undressed in their own beds, in a small courtyard off the beaten path.
3. Provide evidence that the statement Israel Schwartz made to the police was in any way entered for formal review at the Inquest into the manner of her death.
4. Show evidence that proves Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, was there that night as he claimed, and saw someone out with Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, the last time of a sighting of her by someone who actually did know her.
5. Show, using evidence, why Jack the Ripper crimes were unique by virtue of the fact they were committed using knives.

1. No proven connection. But equally, no proof that there was a different cut throat in this case. The boyfriend, Kidney, was eliminated, so not even a sniff of a motive, domestic or otherwise. Circumstantial evidence that the killer - ripper or not - would have risked being caught if he'd lingered at the scene. Could explain the Mitre Square murder, within the hour, if the killer left Dutfield's Yard unsatisfied.
2. Cite specific evidence that shows Kelly's killer sought her out in her own room, and could not have been led there by her after meeting up on the street.
3. Israel Schwartz may or may not have seen Stride's killer, and he didn't see the actual murder, so his evidence would have been of no use at the inquest and I wouldn't use it to form any opinions about the killer's identity.
4. Hutchinson may or may not have seen Kelly's killer, and he didn't see the actual murder, so his evidence would have been of no use at the inquest and I wouldn't use it to form any opinions about the killer's identity.
5. Show, using evidence, where anyone has ever suggested that murders committed with knives were 'unique' to the unsolved Whitechapel Murders.

I'm sorry if this sort of discussion makes you snooty, Michael. I would have had no particular wish to inflict a serial mutilator on Whitechapel if the evidence had shown there could equally have been one mutilating knifeman for Tabram; a second mutilating knifeman for Nichols and Chapman; a one-off cut throat for Stride; a third mutilating knifeman for Eddowes; and a fourth mutilating knifeman for Kelly. What I don't accept is that the evidence shows this was more likely than one mutilating knifeman for at least four of the murders [Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly].

If I was in a minority on this one, I might feel differently. Maybe it's the reluctant feminist in me, but I do fight against a theory that has four of these six women not attacked at random for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because they had each done something to cross some unidentified man so badly that they supplied a unique motive for their own destruction. Can you understand why I find that so distasteful, when I am very far from being alone in not seeing the 'evidence' you see for this being the case?

Have a restful weekend, Michael.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

My pursuit is for something far less ambitious than full agreement Al, its that when taking a position...like Jack the Ripper killed the Canonical Group for example, there is a standard of proof that has to be met to have that premise taken as anything more than just an individual opinion. Its not a foundation for rebuttal. Its a guess. Its a presumption, but it is in no way a conclusion. My suggesting that we make some determinations based on the totality of the known evidence, not the preconceptions that are used, seems to rile some folks, but id rather make up my own mind based on sound evidence rather than follow a premise that is still...at this point in time.... just conjecture and guesswork.

[Bridewell]

Quite sure that Mary Ann Kelly is the one we seek.

Wasn't a lodging house. Think she was being treated for VD.

Possibly still C of E,not Catholic.

29 when murdered.

Thanks for posting that, DJA. In my memory she was quite a bit older. You may be right.

[Bridewell]

1. Cite 1 specific evidence supported detail about the Stride murder that demonstrates a connection with Polly and Annies murder.


These are the same kinds of useless rebuttals I get time and again for [I]statements that I make while using supporting evidence. And you wonder why I get snooty...

The only connection I'm aware of between Nichols and Chapman is the near identical MO. If that counts as specific evidence supported detail then common factors in the MO have to be considered in other comparisons too surely?

Stride: Committed at night, in the small hours of the morning, within a couple of hundred yards of a main road in the East End of London, using a sharp bladed instrument to attack the left carotid artery. That doesn't mean that the same killer was responsible; in fact I no longer believe that to be the case but there are similarities as well as differences. If differences invalidate the comparison then I would point out (despite believing that the same killer was responsible for both) that there is a difference between Nichols (killed in the street) and Chapman (killed in a yard near to the street) - as Stride was.

I agree with you on the other points though.