Different Killers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I don't necessarily agree with you, but I wouldn't reject the idea of a club conspiracy out of hand. Of course, this also raises the intriguing possibility that certain members of the club knew, or suspected, who was responsible but, for whatever reason, chose to cover it up.

I'm sure you have also considered the importance of Fanny Mortimer's evidence. She is credited with saying that she went to her door having heard the heavy tread of a policeman passing by. Now as we know that could only be PC Smith at 12:35. She then supposedly, said that she heard a passing pony and cart, presumably Diemshitz, about 4 or 5 minutes before she returned indoors. Assuming he was telling the truth, this would fix the time at around 12:55/12:56. She was at her door until 1am John.

That implies that she was at her front door between 12:35 and, say, 12:55. Now if that is the case, during that period she should have seen Charles Letchford's sister, Morris Eagle, Joseph Lave, Israel Scwartz, Pipeman, Stride, and Stride's attacker. However, she saw none of these people, and they didn't see her. The only person she did see was Leon Goldstein and his little black bag. It has generally been accepted that she must have got her timings mixed up, but what if she was correct and everyone else lied?

I don't say that Fanny Mortimer was definitely correct and, as I understand it, we are reliant on the press reports of her account. However, unlike the club members, she at least, had no obvious reason to lie. And, of course, if we're being objective, rather than simply advancing a pet theory, we can't pick and choose who we decide to believe or disbelieve.

In fact, I still find it strange that, despite the presence of 28 members, and all the singing going on, the club insisted that they would have heard an argument/ altercation outside of the club. Is this perhaps more evidence of a possible cover up? I mean, how could they possibly know with any degree of certainty?

What I also find a little strange is that she not only didn't see the altercation witnessed by Scwartz, she didn't even hear anything untoward, even assuming she was back indoors at that time.

Read my reply to cds point about Mortimers claims John, and the bold line I inserted above.

I suggest to you that the fact she didn't see Eagle, Lave, Israel, BSM, Pipeman or Louis speaks more to the accuracy of the details of their stories, not hers. Remember, Isaac K, Spooner, He(o)schberg and 1 other club witness recalled being alerted to the body by 12:45.....if they were correct it may well explain why Fanny didn't see or hear Lave or Eagle at 12:40, why she didn't see or hear Liz alive on the street at 12:45 being assaulted, why she didn't see or hear any Pipeman or BSM...and the fact that she did see the young couple and Goldstein seems to validate her statement.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Liz could well have been mistaken for a spy, killed while waiting for someone inside the club, or mistaken for someone unfriendly to the club,.. and in the heat of anger, killed with one slice.

This night was supposed to have been a night when the speaker was Morris, a polarizing socialist in London whose planned attendance drew threats of violence from the locals. Extra security was hired, and kept, even though for safety's sake Morris was cancelled and Eagle inserted as a substitute.

Heres the thing....if a hired security guard acted over zealously or was drunk and acted with lethal force on Liz assuming she was there to cause trouble for the club, the club management would still be held accountable for hiring him...and if he was a socialist too, it would likely impact their operations and get them closed down.

So whose stories downplay any idea that may have happened?....a resident of the cottages and a club member, the club steward, and the speaker that night....all of which would be affected by any negative perceptions of the event. Interesting that all these three have zero corroboration for their claims, and that Israel Schwartz, someone known by Woolf Wess the Arbeter Fraint editor, came forward to say he saw the woman attacked by a gentile on the street.

Anyone who had anything to lose either saw nothing or saw something that has zero corroboration,...yet Fanny, Issac, Spooner and Heschbergs stories align, and in specific areas, corroborate each other.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I have no objection to your referencing Schwartz's non-appearance at the Inquest because, as you say, it is unusual. And if you want to cite his non-appearance to help build an argument that is fine too. But you are using it to state a factual conclusion when all you are doing is speculating.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Liz could well have been mistaken for a spy, killed while waiting for someone inside the club, or mistaken for someone unfriendly to the club,.. and in the heat of anger, killed with one slice.

This night was supposed to have been a night when the speaker was Morris, a polarizing socialist in London whose planned attendance drew threats of violence from the locals. Extra security was hired, and kept, even though for safety's sake Morris was cancelled and Eagle inserted as a substitute.

Heres the thing....if a hired security guard acted over zealously or was drunk and acted with lethal force on Liz assuming she was there to cause trouble for the club, the club management would still be held accountable for hiring him...and if he was a socialist too, it would likely impact their operations and get them closed down.

So whose stories downplay any idea that may have happened?....a resident of the cottages and a club member, the club steward, and the speaker that night....all of which would be affected by any negative perceptions of the event. Interesting that all these three have zero corroboration for their claims, and that Israel Schwartz, someone known by Woolf Wess the Arbeter Fraint editor, came forward to say he saw the woman attacked by a gentile on the street.

Anyone who had anything to lose either saw nothing or saw something that has zero corroboration,...yet Fanny, Issac, Spooner and Heschbergs stories align, and in specific areas, corroborate each other.

This argument reminds me of the Kennedy assassination. All you have to do is list individuals or groups who might have had a reason for wanting him dead and therefore conclude that they had to have been behind it. The problem is that that line of thinking results in about twenty individuals or groups.

Kennedy assassination theories now seem simple and tame compared to this. This is speculation run amuck.

c.d.

[Natasha]

Hello Natasha.

"it's just because they were lodged between the finger and thumb it makes me wonder why it wouldn't be more in the palm of the hand."

Try this. Place a coin in your pocket and then retrieve it. Where is the coin vis-a-vis your hand/fingers?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Ok you got me. But a coin is much smaller.

[Batman]

The cachous crisis is a modern view

Its seems the investigation had a simple explanation.

Dr. Blackwell [recalled] (who assisted in making the post-mortem examination) said: I can confirm Dr. Phillips as to the appearances at the mortuary. I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand. My impression is that the hand gradually relaxed while the woman was dying, she dying in a fainting condition from the loss of blood.

[c.d.]

Its seems the investigation had a simple explanation.

Dr. Blackwell [recalled] (who assisted in making the post-mortem examination) said: I can confirm Dr. Phillips as to the appearances at the mortuary. I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand. My impression is that the hand gradually relaxed while the woman was dying, she dying in a fainting condition from the loss of blood.

Blackwell is addressing the question of her holding the cachous in death. The key question regarding the cachous is when did she take them out?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

tiny

Hello Natasha. Thanks.

"Ok you got me. But a coin is much smaller."

Depends on the coin. Have you seen Imps or Sen-Sen? Tiny indeed.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello CD.

"Blackwell is addressing the question of her holding the cachous in death. The key question regarding the cachous is when did she take them out?"

Absolutely. Not to mention why.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Blackwell is addressing the question of her holding the cachous in death. The key question regarding the cachous is when did she take them out?

c.d.

Why would that be an issue?

I mean don't people just eat these randomly at any time in any place in whatever flavour they want?

[c.d.]

Why would that be an issue?

I mean don't people just eat these randomly at any time in any place in whatever flavour they want?

Hello Batman,

The timing of Liz taking the cachous out is critical as to whether or not the B.S. man was her killer. Take a look at post no. 398 on page 40 of this thread.

c.d.

[John G]

Its seems the investigation had a simple explanation.

Dr. Blackwell [recalled] (who assisted in making the post-mortem examination) said: I can confirm Dr. Phillips as to the appearances at the mortuary. I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand. My impression is that the hand gradually relaxed while the woman was dying, she dying in a fainting condition from the loss of blood.

Hi Batman,

As I argued in an earlier post, I believe that if you reject BS man as Stride's killer and accept the cachous argument, which I believe is persuasively and logically argued, it actually strengthens the argument in favour of Stride being a Ripper victim.

The scenario that you're left with is Stride, calmly eating the cachous, perfectly relaxed, whilst looming behind her is her killer, knife in hand, poised to strike.

Now it's hard to explain such a scenario from the perspective of a common domestic murder. Would Stride be so relaxed, and confident enough to turn her back on her killer, apparently completely oblivious to the danger she was in, following an argument/ heated discussion with that killer? And surely, in a more common domestic murder you would have expected that some kind of fraught interaction with the man would have preceded the assault. as I said It's so hard to argue from the perspective of a domestic killing.

However, it's exactly what seems to have happened in the case of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

[c.d.]

Hello John,

The scene you describe would be consistent with Liz being with a client which is what I think happened and I think that client was Jack.

c.d.

[John G]

Hello John,

The scene you describe would be consistent with Liz being with a client which is what I think happened and I think that client was Jack.

c.d.

Yes, I agree. That in itself would suggest something much rarer than a common domestic murder. However, the fact that Stride seems to have been so relaxed, immediately prior to the fatal blow being struck, indicates that she sensed no danger from her killer. That would tend to rule out a dispute with the client, say, over money. What it suggests to me is that the client/killer was able to put Stride at her ease, giving no indication of what his murderous intentions were. So much so, that she must have been still relaxed, oblivious of any danger, whilst he was looming behind her, knife in hand, poised to strike. That is not only indicative of a pre-planned murder, but was surely exactly the same strategy used by whoever killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

[Batman]

It's either the bridge or the ripper for me...

In the case of Ada Wilson, the attempt failed. She was stabbed in the neck, out the door and calling out blue murderer. Residents and others gave chase and nearly caught him. He barely escaped. That's a tough woman to get that crowd going after being stabbed in the neck.

If Ada Wilson is an example of the earlier development of a lust killer, there would be a lesson learned here. Don't leave your intended victim in the capacity to not just have people chase after you, but furnish a pretty good description of you too for the papers.

Long liz was the tallest of the C5. She would have been roughly the same height as the person who accousted her. Being of Scandanavian genetics I think out of the 5, she was the one most likely to give JtR problems if he messed up... and he did have problems it seems.

However the simple explanation and the one that Dr. Blackwell is indicating, is that she remained in possession of her property throughout the ordeal. Even a broken piece of mirror was a prized item to have back then. Do women immediately drop/let go of their shopping/handbangs because someone has accousted them? I would say a good segment of the population would try to retain their property regardless of what it is. A wallet, a hat, a bag of sweets.

JtR likely didn't brandish a knife until after they where rendered unconscious or semi-unconscious. His first task is to cover their faces and get them down as soon as possible in a blitz. All she knows is this guy is attacking her for the property she is holding and not willing to part with. Heck even Chapman got a smashing from another woman over a piece of soap. What she didn't bargan for was how quickly he would have blood circulation cut off to her brain before using a knife to make sure that circulation terminates with immediate effect.

If he pulled the knife and she saw it, that would be another matter. However this isn't what Schwartz described. He was watching an unarmed man blitzing a woman.

If Schwartz is lying then...
1. He managed to guess a front assault even though the pathology report had not yet released that she had bruising on her front. The pathologist didn't know about Schwartz.
2. He managed to describe a person very close to the one Lawende described and general description of JtR that most of the witnesses agree on.

In fact the lack of BS man with a knife, is good evidence that he isn't just making it all up. I mean don't you think he would have included JtRs most iconic artifact in his story?

It is likely his story was in fact corrborated by other witnesses. http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...hlight=pipeman

... and that's from Paul Begg.