A Murderer That Doesn't Murder

[caz]

But Nicole's uterus wasn't taken, which would be odd if obtaining a uterus was the goal, unless you think he was interrupted. If so, what is the evidence that he was interrupted in that case by the way? What if at that time he wasn't intending to take her uterus? How do you know he was?

That, right there, shows us just how facile Michael's argument is.

Moreover, if obtaining a uterus was the goal, and you think he was interrupted in Nichole's case, but link them because she had abdominal wounds, legs spread, and two throat cuts, dismissing a case because there's only one large main cut to the throat (though a second, more superficial one) but there is a missing uterus, and her legs are spread, and there are abdominal cuts and mutilations, would be inconsistent, particularly given the similarities like placing bits over shoulders, presumably in aid of obtaining the uterus.

How, given the basis of your confident linking of Nichols and Chapman, can you not link Eddowes as well to those two?

- Jeff

Because Michael's suspect was having his bumps felt in an asylum when Eddowes became the victim of an impertinent imitator.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why would someone want two thirds of a bladder?

Okay, I'm tempted.

Taking the whole bladder would have been taking the piss?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no evidence of the killer having a limp either so would we dismiss a potential suspect on the grounds that he had a limp?

If Annie Chapman had been found with just her throat cut would we be correct in entirely dismissing her as a potential victim? Or would we at least consider the possibility that the killer might have been disturbed (by Cadosch?)

How can an unknown be used to prove something?

[Michael W Richards]

Why would someone want two thirds of a bladder?

Id rather see a series of the same organs to explain all this easier myself, thats why I call these serial abdominal mutilations. Unlike Baxter I cant say that for other than Annie, a uterus was the goal. Thats why Nichols and Chapman can easily be associated...aside from the volume of evidence that corroborates that opinion. The abdominal mutilation.

And thats why despite what Caz calls my "suspect" I remain on the fence about Eddowes. My "suspect", who by the way was later identified as being a bloodied and strange man in a pub down the road from and on the morning of Annies murder, was in an institution at the time of Kates murder.

[Michael W Richards]

There’s no evidence of the killer having a limp either so would we dismiss a potential suspect on the grounds that he had a limp?

If Annie Chapman had been found with just her throat cut would we be correct in entirely dismissing her as a potential victim? Or would we at least consider the possibility that the killer might have been disturbed (by Cadosch?)

How can an unknown be used to prove something?

That darn imagination of yours.....is everything interrupted without any physical evidence showing it? Was this post interrupted?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That darn imagination of yours.....is everything interrupted without any physical evidence showing it? Was this post interrupted?

Do us all a favour for once Michael and answer a straight question without doing your “Ill defend my theory at all cost” dance.

Any chance?

Bear with me because I’m going to use the word ‘interrupted’ so please down go into a swoon. Ok? Hypothetically then, because none of us were there....

Stride is in the yard with her killer. He cuts her throat and as he does it he hears Diemschutz cart approach. He stops what he’s doing, listening to hear if it’s going to pass by. He hears it slow down so he assumes that it’s coming into the yard and so he ducks into the shadows. Diemschutz goes inside and the killer leaves.

Now Michael....freeze frame.

We now walk into that yard and see Stride lying there with her throat cut.

PLEASE, PLEASE POINT OUT TO US ALL WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD WE EXPECT TO SEE AT THE CRIME SCENE THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE THAT THE KILLER HAD BEEN INTERRUPTED.

I can’t imagine what nonsense you’re going to come out with?

[Michael W Richards]

Do us all a favour for once Michael and answer a straight question without doing your “Ill defend my theory at all cost” dance.

Any chance?

Bear with me because I’m going to use the word ‘interrupted’ so please down go into a swoon. Ok? Hypothetically then, because none of us were there....

Stride is in the yard with her killer. He cuts her throat and as he does it he hears Diemschutz cart approach. He stops what he’s doing, listening to hear if it’s going to pass by. He hears it slow down so he assumes that it’s coming into the yard and so he ducks into the shadows. Diemschutz goes inside and the killer leaves.

Now Michael....freeze frame.

We now walk into that yard and see Stride lying there with her throat cut.

PLEASE, PLEASE POINT OUT TO US ALL WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD WE EXPECT TO SEE AT THE CRIME SCENE THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE THAT THE KILLER HAD BEEN INTERRUPTED.

I can’t imagine what nonsense you’re going to come out with?

Clothing in disarray , legs spread, skirt lifted, body moved since first hitting the ground, someone seen quickly leaving the scene (3 street witnesses including the young couple and Fanny saw no-one), things dropped at the scene, body dragged, unidentified articles found near body, abbreviated cuts, ...I could list a bunch more, but you dont care about What IS anyway, ...you only care about What IF, even where there is no evidence the consideration is worth anyones time.

[erobitha]

Clothing in disarray , legs spread, skirt lifted, body moved since first hitting the ground, someone seen quickly leaving the scene (3 street witnesses including the young couple and Fanny saw no-one), things dropped at the scene, body dragged, unidentified articles found near body, abbreviated cuts, ...I could list a bunch more, but you dont care about What IS anyway, ...you only care about What IF, even where there is no evidence the consideration is worth anyones time.

You mean to say you don’t think Stride was a Ripper victim? I’m shocked.

[Michael W Richards]

You mean to say you don’t think Stride was a Ripper victim? I’m shocked.

The fact that I have to continually argue about this issue strikes me as particularly odd...when considering that in no way or terms was Liz Stride "ripped". I guess people would rather be among the crowd even if it means defying logic to be there.

[c.d.]

Clothing in disarray , legs spread, skirt lifted, body moved since first hitting the ground, someone seen quickly leaving the scene (3 street witnesses including the young couple and Fanny saw no-one), things dropped at the scene, body dragged, unidentified articles found near body, abbreviated cuts, ...I could list a bunch more, but you dont care about What IS anyway, ...you only care about What IF, even where there is no evidence the consideration is worth anyones time.

Sorry, but none of the things listed here would be seen per Herlock's scenario. You simply listed things that might be seen in general but conveniently ducked his specific scenario.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clothing in disarray , legs spread, skirt lifted, body moved since first hitting the ground, someone seen quickly leaving the scene (3 street witnesses including the young couple and Fanny saw no-one), things dropped at the scene, body dragged, unidentified articles found near body, abbreviated cuts, ...I could list a bunch more, but you dont care about What IS anyway, ...you only care about What IF, even where there is no evidence the consideration is worth anyones time.

WHAT???

SERIOUSLY???

THATS YOUR RESPONSE???

How the hell could we EXPECT to have seen clothing in disarray, legs spread, skirt lifted, body moved IF THE KILLER WAS INTERRUPTED BEFORE THESE THINGS OCCURRED ie just as he’d cut her throat.

Your posts are a joke. Unadulterated, biased drivel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry, but none of the things listed here would be seen per Herlock's scenario. You simply listed things that might be seen in general but conveniently ducked his specific scenario.

c.d.

Exactly c.d.

You can see this, I can see this, any functioning unbiased adult can see this but sadly this is the level that Michael stoops too.

[c.d.]

Saying I see no sign of an interruption and therefore I can't consider it in my thinking is certainly reasonable and I have no problem with that approach. Saying there could not have been an interruption without evidence for it to me is simply poor thinking and seems to smack of an agenda.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry, but none of the things listed here would be seen per Herlock's scenario. You simply listed things that might be seen in general but conveniently ducked his specific scenario.

c.d.

Its a nice fictional representation of a murder. But it seems Diemshitz didnt arrive when he said he did for one, and he cant just "leave" without being seen by anyone...the young couple or Fanny, Eagle or Lave at 12:40. Herlocks scenario depends wholly on the killer making the single cut while a cart and horse would be heard approaching. Unlikely at best. He also suggests that the killer "ducks into the shadows", which could only be behind the open gate...going further into the yard wouldnt work in his fiction. He would have to get by cart and horse and Louis to leave, or via the club through the kitchen then unlocking the front door. All unseen. Plus the fact his scenario has a cart and horse suddenly being heard at the exact cut time seems like a self serving facet. Its like arguing Fanny must have been inside when BSM and Liz and Pipeman suddenly are present on a street multiple witnesses say was deserted. Fanny said she was at her door "nearly the whole time", and provably so for the last 10 minutes of the hour by virtue of her Goldstein sighting. To imagine the most probable situation is one that had to happened in a split second while everyone wasnt looking is weak. Surely probabilities are something to consider over within the realm of possibility. To imagine that Liz is cut despite the fact the cart and horse would be heard for sometime before actually pulling into the passageway isnt probable, to imagine that he could hide and leave via the street without being seen is highly improbable, and to imagine that the Ripper would try to pull off a single cut knowing he couldnt stay to mutilate is impossible. The Ripper only killed so he could rip, you know, thats why he got the name.

I dont mind playing fictional scenarios, just not when Im studying historical crimes to find out what really happened.

[Michael W Richards]

Saying I see no sign of an interruption and therefore I can't consider it in my thinking is certainly reasonable and I have no problem with that approach. Saying there could not have been an interruption without evidence for it to me is simply poor thinking and seems to smack of an agenda.

c.d.

No evidence means its not worth considering seriously. What you call poor thinking is actually a decision based on the available facts, so I can certainly see why you wouldnt understand it.