Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Murderer That Doesn't Murder

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    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.
    Oooh!!! Nice snarky response.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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.
      Your scenario is pure fiction and an irresponsible misrepresentation of what would be considered a realistic scenario. The man is just inside the gates, hears the cart and horse coming but cuts anyway. Suddenly he realizes the cart and horse, which he heard approaching anyway is turning into the yard...something eminently predictable by the approaching sound, so he disappears into a fog and slips away without anyone seeing him. And you want me to take that seriously? Pleeze. You have him making a single cut when he knows thats all he can do, when we already know that the Ripper cuts the throat as a first step, not a finale. Incredible logic. Well done.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        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.
        More joke thinking.

        The idea that Diemschutz arrived back earlier is of course nonsense. You are the only person that 'believes' this and only because you have a fantasy to uphold.

        The possibility that the killer first heard the cart as he cut her throat is not unlikely. It's no more unlikely than any other time. You think it's unlikely because you are trying to support an unsupportable theory and you're prepared to go to any lengths to support it.

        Fanny also said that she first came onto her doorstep at 12.45 so she's hardly the most reliable is she? As Trevor would say, she's 'unsafe.'

        ​​​​​​​Why do you say that it's proved that she was there for the last 10 minutes due to her seeing Goldstein? Goldstein didn't mention a time so we get his time of passing from her and not the other way around.

        It wasn't a 'split second' whilst no one was looking of course. The Schwartz incident would probably only have taken 30 seconds so it's hardly a freak if no one saw it.

        ....

        You certainly don't mind playing fictitious scenarios. You theory is entirely fictitious as everyone in the world but you accepts.​​​​​​​
        Regards

        Herlock



        “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

        ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          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.
          That is a very inaccurate description of Herlock's scenario. There are plenty of places for the killer to hide besides "behind the open gate". Herlock's scenario also said "Diemschutz goes inside and the killer leaves", which means the killer would not "have to get by cart and horse and Louis to leave" or "via the club through the kitchen then unlocking the front door".

          Comment


          • #50
            An "interruption" can take any form, it doesn't have to be Diemshutz (though that was the thought at the time, that doesn't mean it's correct). Interruptions, in fact, seem pretty par for the course for JtR actually. There's a good chance that JtR was forced to leave when Cross came down Buck's Row, Cadocshe keeps going back and forth in the next yard at Hanbury Street, PC Harvey patrols Church Passage and Morris opened the door of the warehouse in Mitre Square. All of those known events point to the fact that these murders were very high risk locations, and really, JtR was just very lucky not to have been seen. While we could debate some, or even all, of those examples (Cross is probably the most speculative of the lot as the time of Nichols murder could have been earlier than implied), the point is that JtR could very well have been interrupted every time he killed outside. If, for example, he was so caught up in the moment with Chapman that he actually didn't realise Cadosche was back and forth in the next yard, he may very well have become more cautious with Stride (presuming she is a JtR victim here; I'm not convinced either way) and have been more easily spooked. He could have cut her throat, and while waiting for the blood flow to slow before cutting a second time (if he was going to), noise in the club could have spooked him (say, the singing picked up, or there was a cheer, or maybe the singing stopped and he feared the event was over and people about to leave, or something of that sort) and he leaves, before Diemshutz even arrives on the scene. His successful "escape" could then have bolstered his confidence with Eddowes (again, speculation here).

            With Stride what we have is absence of evidence, he didn't mutilate her, but that is not evidence of absence - we don't know what Stride's killer intended. If she was a victim of JtR then something caused him to leave, whether that something was an external event or an internal one (something didn't feel right), we can never know. But simply because she wasn't mutilated is not proof she wasn't killed by JtR. It is consistent with a different killer, sure, but it's not proof of a different killer.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              That darn imagination of yours.....is everything interrupted without any physical evidence showing it? Was this post interrupted?
              Don't know....but isn't that the point? Only you know how much more you wanted to say, just like only the killer knew how much more he wanted to cut.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                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?
                Alternatively, Herlock, the killer may have heard the cart approaching while he was still trying to persuade Stride to play ball and go with him somewhere they were less likely to be interrupted [that word again] by ponies and carts and club members coming and going and what have you. As Louis D was about to prove, the killer would have had very good reason not to try whipping out a womb, or two-thirds of a bladder, or a kidney or two, in that location. Thoroughly pissed off that a pony had called time on his efforts to make this woman co-operate, he did a quick cut and run, knowing she wouldn't survive to describe Mister Persistent.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  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.
                  If this was your club member, he was presumably interrupted by Louis D's pony before he could attempt to make this look like 'another' murder, by doing any of the above.

                  Do I win 5?
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    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.
                    So if your club member was guilty, and had had enough time to make this resemble the previous murders, by doing a little "ripping" with his knife before Louis D arrived, would that have made all the difference do you think?
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      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.
                      It's worse than that, c.d, because by Michael's own reasoning, Louis D had discovered the body by 12.35, in which case it was a minor miracle that he didn't interrupt the killer before his knife was able to get into its - er - stride.
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        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.
                        What a load of tripe. The ripper was a human being who used a knife to murder women. Why would he not have used it to kill this woman, on hearing the pony and cart approaching, knowing he couldn't stay to do more this time, while your equally knife happy club member had no such inhibitions about using it in the same circumstances? The ripper didn't have to 'try' to pull off a single cut. He knew how to make it count. Much tougher for a first timer to try to pull off, with Louis D just about to enter the scene.

                        If your studies have been thorough, you will know that the ripper got that name before Stride was murdered, but it wasn't made public until after she and Eddowes were murdered. If a hoaxer gave it to him, nobody told him he was only supposed to kill his next victim if a ripping was assured. But if it came from the killer himself, he'd have considered it a personal blow that the fates were against him on his very next outing after sending the letter, which would then explain Eddowes.
                        Last edited by caz; 04-21-2021, 11:55 AM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          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.
                          So your entire club conspiracy theory was never worth considering seriously, but that hasn't stopped you trying. No evidence for it, unless you reject all the evidence against it and manipulate what's left to make it work. That's not just poor thinking; it's the worst case of confirmation bias I think I have seen in the 22 years I have been following these message boards.

                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Wow! 22 years? You've been around a long time, Caroline.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X