The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[lynn cates]

mystery

Hello Errata. If it were in her fist, there'd be no mystery.

If was between thumb and forefinger.

Imagine a coin you are about to insert in a vending machine.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Special

Hello Errata. If it were in her fist, there'd be no mystery.

If was between thumb and forefinger.

Imagine a coin you are about to insert in a vending machine.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn's model has a person having their throat cut, falling and still holding the sweets between the thumb and forefinger. However its a *special* assault that allows for this happen.

BSman's assault isn't allowed this level of *special* treatment because Schwartz describes her going down before the body was found a few feet around the gate behind them. So apparently there is some *special* barrier here preventing her from still holding the sweets during the assault (despite the hoards of evidence for people being killed still holding onto things).

Then we have the body being disturbed, practically beaten around with a stick, moved and yet we are to accept the sweets never budged in her hand because its impossible for any movement to have the object settle between the finger and thumb apparently.

This conspiracy theory involving Schwartz and mysterious "others" is pleading for special circumstances left, right and centre. We will be asked to name witnesses who saw Schwartz that night (which we can't do, but can show how Pipeman was likely the person who saw him) and then when we ask the conspiracy theorists to "name the people other than Schwartz in the conspiracy" are given some special reason why they don't need too provide that, despite asking for it from us.

[Batman]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Are we to doubt their stories simply because no one else was there at the time?"

Batman was accepting it as established that Schwartz was on Berner. It was not.

Cheers.
LC

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=321192&postcount=1

Plenty of contemporary details in that link refuting the idea the investigators got it wrong and addresses the topic of additional witnesses.

[John G]

Lynn's model has a person having their throat cut, falling and still holding the sweets between the thumb and forefinger. However its a *special* assault that allows for this happen.

BSman's assault isn't allowed this level of *special* treatment because Schwartz describes her going down before the body was found a few feet around the gate behind them. So apparently there is some *special* barrier here preventing her from still holding the sweets during the assault (despite the hoards of evidence for people being killed still holding onto things).

Then we have the body being disturbed, practically beaten around with a stick, moved and yet we are to accept the sweets never budged in her hand because its impossible for any movement to have the object settle between the finger and thumb apparently.

This conspiracy theory involving Schwartz and mysterious "others" is pleading for special circumstances left, right and centre. We will be asked to name witnesses who saw Schwartz that night (which we can't do, but can show how Pipeman was likely the person who saw him) and then when we ask the conspiracy theorists to "name the people other than Schwartz in the conspiracy" are given some special reason why they don't need too provide that, despite asking for it from us.

Have you forgotten that none of the cachous were dropped-the only evidence of spillage were the cachous found close to the body, but Dr Blackwell stated he was probably responsible when he removed the package from her hand-despite Stride, according to Schwartz, being assaulted several times by BS man, i.e. spun around, dragged into the street, thrown to the ground, dragged into the Yard? Despite the fact that they were being held in some flimsy tissue between thumb and forefinger.

Can you give a single example of when this has happened?

What's the evidence Pipeman even existed, apart from maybe a brief reference in a press report?

And then there's the tricky problem of no-one hearing anything, despite the fact that BS man, unlike JtR, was far from subtle.

[Batman]

Have you forgotten that none of the cachous were dropped-the only evidence of spillage were the cachous found close to the body, but Dr Blackwell stated he was probably responsible when he removed the package from her hand-despite

In Lynn's model they don't spill either as she is being pulled down. Why the special treatment?

...Stride, according to Schwartz, being assaulted several times by BS man, i.e. spun around,

In Lynn's model she is spun around to her left side. Why the special treatment of this but not Schwart's spinning?

dragged into the street,

This is wrong. She was not dragged into the street. It is not what Schwartz says at all. http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/schwartz.html

thrown to the ground,

Also in Lynn's model. Why the special treatment?

Despite the fact that they were being held in some flimsy tissue between thumb and forefinger.

You can't infer that. The body was disturbed grossly by several people. You have no idea how it was situated before that. Could have been up her sleeve like a tissue as many people have countless said a thousand times over before.

Also even the doctor doesn't know if he absolutely spilled them or not so what kind of memory are we dealing with when it comes to how the sweets where held in the first place? Not good if he can't recall precisely what happened as he interacted with body.

Can you give a single example of when this has happened?

DaneF gave plenty but they got ignored. What makes you think even more examples would overcome that bias?

What's the evidence Pipeman even existed, apart from maybe a brief reference in a press report?

The press report says he was arrested. Later on Swanson's report to the home office says they accept Schwartz's story and don't suspect the second man.

That's more contemporary evidence than the conspiracy theory has (none at all). That's all I need then.

And then there's the tricky problem of no-one hearing anything, despite the fact that BS man, unlike JtR, was far from subtle.

Oh you mean the conspiracy theory involving people claiming to be there and hearing/seeing nothing... despite Lynn's model involving the killer going out the door, meeting Stride and killing her?

So let me get this right? JtR was subtle in your opinion but BSman was not. So if JtR wasn't subtle then BSman is more like him right?

Let's see how subtle JtR is...

Polly Nichols - Maybe wasn't even dead because the killer was disturbed by witnesses coming. No one heard anything. Subtle, yes.
Annie Chapman - Is heard crying out NO as she hits the fence by a neighbour standing on the other side. Subtle? Nope.
Stride - Killer is shouting Lipski at passers by. Subtle? Nope.
Eddowes - Although being seen by Lawende et al, was subtle in the murder, but seen. Subtle? Semi-subtle.
Kelly - Screamed murder heard by neighbours. Subtle? No.

Subtle - 1
Semi-Subtle - 1
Not subtle - 3

I think you are confusing the subtleness of escape with the crime themselves. JtR was lucky and nearly got caught on several occasions.


The thing is this. You can't setup all these barriers for BSman and then drop them for Lynn's account. That's called special pleading. Hence the special comments.

[lynn cates]

forensics

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"Lynn's model has a person having their throat cut. . . "

No, it has HER getting her throat cut. (You need noun/verb agreement.)

". . . falling and still holding the sweets between the thumb and forefinger. However it's a *special* assault that allows for this happen."

Special? What's special about it?

"BSman's assault isn't allowed this level of *special* treatment because Schwartz describes her going down before the body was found a few feet around the gate behind them."

Yes. And that's precisely why I find it bogus.

"So apparently there is some *special* barrier here preventing her from still holding the sweets during the assault. . ."

That's right:

1. NO movement to the throat.

2. Hitting the pavement.

"(despite the hoards of evidence for people being killed still holding onto things)."

Not after hitting a pavement with force. (Note: What did I tell you, CD?)

"Then we have the body being disturbed . . ."

Insignificantly.

". . . practically beaten around with a stick . . ."

Wow! Remind me not to eat pudding at your house. It would have an eggy taste.

". . . moved and yet we are to accept the sweets never budged in her hand because it's impossible for any movement to have the object settle between the finger and thumb apparently."

We are to believe that simply because they did NOT move--until the doctors moved them.

"This conspiracy theory involving Schwartz and mysterious "others" is pleading for special circumstances left, right and centre."

It is trying to make sense out of nonsense (no offense, but it's rather like reading your posts).

"We will be asked to name witnesses who saw Schwartz that night (which we can't do, but can show how Pipeman was likely the person who saw him) and then when we ask the conspiracy theorists to "name the people other than Schwartz in the conspiracy" are given some special reason why they don't need too provide that, despite asking for it from us."

No difficulty there. A best guess would include, perhaps, Wess, Eygle and Dimshits.

But why not concentrate on forensics? That's the crux of the problem. Of course, you won't since your theory is destroyed as soon as one thinks about it (cf. Holmes and Lastrade).

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

farce

Hello (again) Batman.

"In Lynn's model they don't spill either as she is being pulled down. Why the special treatment?"

That's because her hands tightened as the scarf was seized. And in MY model she does not hit the ground--she is lowered.

Surely a "scientist" knows a bit about force? Of course, your model depends not on FORCE but on FARCE. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

hail Caesar

Hello (yet again) Batman.

You keep talking about Liz being thrown to the ground in my model. That is false.

Now, go to the board and write:

"I will stop misrepresenting the ideas of others."

one hundred times. Then come see me in my office to discuss your grade. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

The fact you think this isn't a significantly disturbed crime scene says plenty about the quality of forensics you make inferences from.

[John G]

Hello Batman,

According to the official report of Scwartz's evidence: "The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly."

Now bearing in mind that the cachous were contained in a flimsy bit of tissue, precariously held between thumb and forefinger, I have the following questions:

How did Stride manage to hold onto the cachous, without spilling any, whilst BS man attempted to pull her into the street? How does this not infringe Newton's Law of Gravity?

How did Stride manage to hold to hold onto the cachous, without spilling any, or at least most of them, whist BS man was spinning her around? How does this not infringe Newton's Law of Gravity?

How did Stride manage to hold onto the cachous, without spilling any, or at least most of them, whilst being thrown down on onto the footway? How does this not infringe Newton's Law of Gravity?

I have further questions:

Why did no one hear Stride being assaulted, or her screams, especially Mrs Mortimer and Mrs D?

How did BS man persuade Stride to go with him into a pitch black dark, narrow passage, especially after just assaulting her?

How did such an unsubtle killer, such as BS man, prevent Stride from screaming again after getting her into the passage?

Why did Mrs D hear nothing, despite being sat in the kitchen, just feet away from where Stride was murdered, with the window open?

Why did no-one in the nearby court lodgings hear anything despite, according to the Star report, being awake?

You also suggest that the tissue, and presumably cachous were up Stride's sleeve. Does this mean you think Stride could have had a sidle-line as a street magician? How did the cachous mysteriously get from Stride's sleeve into her hand? Does this also involve magic? Is there the possibility that supernatural forces could be involved?

You seem to think that JtR was not a subtle, highly efficient killer, but stumbling, drunken fool, who would attack a victim in front of two witnesses. I therefore have the following questions:

How likely is it that such a killer would be forensically aware?

How likely is it that such a killer would be able to quickly and efficiently eviscerate his victims, in poor lighting conditions, demonstrating, according to Trevor Marriott's experts, surgical skill?

To summarize, we have a killer who manages to lure his victims to the locations where they are murdered, quickly manages to overpower them, mutilates their throat, eviscerates them, removes organs with near surgical skill in poor lighting conditions, and manages to do all this without alerting his victims to the dangers- despite the fact that latter victims would surely be extremely wary, following the earlier murders- or being seen during or after the murders. No-one hears the victims cry out, no-one hears a struggle. No-one interrupts him, despite the incredibly short window of opportunity that he must have had at both Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.

And yet you believe that this killer was stumbling, intoxicated BS man, who would assault a victim in front of two witnesses, and act in a way that was anything but organized and subtle.

You refer to Kelly screaming murder, Heard by neighbours. however, this was between 3:30 and 4:00am. This creates something of a problem as Dr Bond believes that she died sometime between 1:00am and 2:00am. He also thinks that she was probably asleep at the time.

Nonetheless, I can assure you that I have given full consideration to the matter. However, I have arrived at the following conclusions:

I think it unlikely that Kelly would have been aware of any imminent danger, as well as being able to quickly respond by shouting shout out "murder", whilst asleep.

I think it less likely that she would be able to shout out murder whilst she was dead.

[lynn cates]

"And if you get the chance, . . ."

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"The fact you think this isn't a significantly disturbed crime scene says plenty about the quality of forensics you make inferences from."

And from the fact that you WILL NOT and CANNOT deal coherently with the cachous but, instead, change the subject, helps me understand what ABBA meant when they sang, "Dancing Queen." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

The inquest found that they may not have heard anything because they where playing music.

Again if you think that nobody being killed can hang onto anything, then you will have a mystery here... And everywhere else it has happened apparently.

A human body with brain, bone, muscle, nerves isn't a plank of wood balancing a tissue on the end that gets knocked. Its a living thing with response and reflexes that can do as it pleases.

[lynn cates]

waste of time

Hello John. Excellent questions and observations.

However, you may be wasting your time.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

fallacies

Hello Batman.

"Again if you think that nobody being killed can hang onto anything, . . ."

Two fallacies here:

1. Red Herring

2. Straw man

Pity's sake mate, learn a bit of logic.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"The fact you think this isn't a significantly disturbed crime scene says plenty about the quality of forensics you make inferences from."

And from the fact that you WILL NOT and CANNOT deal coherently with the cachous but, instead, change the subject, helps me understand what ABBA meant when they sang, "Dancing Queen." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Oh well, you want to go back to the conspiracy theory... You are welcome to it.

As for topic change... Look at the thread title. My position is that JtR due to his experience with Jews that night sought to implicate them. Your trying to sell your stride conspiracy theory.