Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

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

  • #91
    I dont disagree in principle with most everything there Chava as far as choice of location, burt I think on Hanbury Street the killer didnt make that choice. Annie did. Mary was at home in her underwear when her killer came to her. You might see that as the victim again choosing the location, but I think the reality is that he went to Millers Court because that where the person he intended to kill was. The location in that case seems to established prior to the crime, rather than just wherever the opportunity took place in the East End.

    I think the Hanbury Street murder was in an exceptionally poor location, and at a poor time, for the killer to be in. But the victims spontaneous choice there created that inopportune venue, the murderer in Millers Court had no other options either, but spontaneity was no factor there. He entered that court knowing its weakness for someone escaping from it. The man that killed Annie just followed along with the flow and decided at some point the risk was worth it. Which then left him vulnerable.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-16-2020, 12:08 PM.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      I think the Hanbury Street murder was in an exceptionally poor location, and at a poor time, for the killer to be in. But the victims spontaneous choice there created that inopportune venue, the murderer in Millers Court had no other options either, but spontaneity was no factor there. He entered that court knowing its weakness for someone escaping from it. The man that killed Annie just followed along with the flow and decided at some point the risk was worth it. Which then left him vulnerable.
      Another aspect running parallel to risk could have been opportunity. If, in fact, he did kill Annie deep into the morning, he may have rationalized that dawn would be breaking within an hour or so, and she provided him with the best opportunity for committing a murder on that particular date and time. Although he may have had the best laid plans for his lustmord [ie. organ harvesting], Annie may have been the only woman that night who provided a willing fateful encounter to accomplish those ends; and do, he was forced to mitigate the risk based on a fleeting opportunity.

      But it also sets a precedence, a man unafraid to commit a ghastly murder in the backyard of an occupied homestead is not going to later suffer the coward's streak at, say, a men's club filled with jovial club members or a woman's apartment with only one entry.

      there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Chava View Post

        He certainly only takes on women he's sure he can overpower. Three of those women were 5'-5'2". I've even seen PM stuff that suggested 'Long Liz' was only 5'2" although official accounts have her at 5'5". However she wasn't in great shape. All of them were ill and they were old by the standards of the time. Kelly is different. I think he only takes Kelly on because she's drunk as a lord. She was a big woman, 25 years old, 5'7" tall and I believe had been known to give a good account of herself in a fight. It fascinates me that he even goes near her. But a level of intoxication has to be one of the things he looks for if not the main factor in his decision. Every one of those women were seen drunk before they were killed.
        In the post mortem of Elizabeth Stride, it was noted that her right leg was bowed forward this always led me to a suspicion that she may have limped or lagged as she walked iow I don't believe that she stepped naturally. The irony of her surname is not lost on me and I've fruitlessly speculated that she may have [also] been referred to as "Liz Long-Stride".

        On aside, I agree that Mary Jane was a bigger woman.
        there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

        Comment


        • #94
          This is me, getting back to CC re the unaccounted for constable on Fairclough St.

          Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

          PC Smith doesn't appear to identify himself as that constable and PC Lamb doesn't identify another policeman being there on his arrival, so who is the policeman seen on the corner of Christian Street? If going by PC Smith's beat it should be him but he suggests he arrives after PC Lamb and makes no mention of blowing his whistle. He says he was last in Berner Street about 10 minutes before James Brown. Both mention seeing a man in a long dark coat with Elizabeth Stride. Is the policeman on Christian Street and called for and heard to blow his whistle PC Smith or another constable unaccounted for?
          Here are the constables at Dutfield's Yard:

          252H Henry Lamb
          426H unknown
          12HR Albert Collins
          452H William Smith

          This is Lamb, in the Times:

          About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running towards me. I went towards them and heard them say, "Come on! There has been another murder." I said, "Where?" As they got to the corner of Berner-street they pointed down the street. Seeing people moving about some distance down Berner-street, I ran down that street followed by Constable 426 H.

          This sounds very much like 252H & 426H have run along Commercial Rd, and then down Berner St to #40.

          Smith also reaches the yard by going down Berner St, from Commercial Rd.

          [Tele] I was in Berner-street about half-past twelve or twenty-five minutes to one o'clock, and having gone round my beat, was at the Commercial-road corner of Berner-street again at one o'clock. I was not called. I saw a crowd outside the gates of No. 40, Berner-street. I heard no cries of "Police." When I came to the spot two constables had already arrived.

          Which two?

          [Times] At 1 o'clock I went to Berner-street in my ordinary round. I saw a crowd of people outside the gates of No. 40. I did not hear any cries of "Police." When I got there I saw constables 12 H R and 252 H.

          So at this point (a little after 1am), all 4 PCs are at the yard - Smith having been the last to arrive.
          Smith refers to seeing 12HR & 252H when he arrives, but Lamb has already accounted for 426H, and I think by 'saw', Smith means 'spoke with'.

          So who's route to Dutfield's Yard have we not accounted for? Answer: 12HR Albert Collins

          It must have been PC Collins that James Brown could see on the corner of Fairclough & Christian streets, and whose whistle was heard by both Mr Harris and Abraham Heshburg.

          From the above we can state the arrival order of the 4 PCs:

          Lamb & 426H > Collins > Smith

          Now let's have another look at our friend Edward Spooner...

          As I was going to Berner-street I did not meet any one except Mr. Harris, who came out of his house in Tiger Bay (Brunswick-street). Mr. Harris told me he had heard the policeman's whistle blowing.

          Mr Harris heard Collins' whistle and came outside. Spooner meets Harris while on route to Berner St.
          The arrival order dictates that, at this point, Lamb and 426H are already at the yard. What then, to make of this:

          [Times] Edward Spooner said, - I live at 26, Fairclough-street, and am a horse-keeper at Messrs. Meredith's. Between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was standing outside the Bee Hive publichouse, at the corner of Christian-street and Fairclough-street, along with a young woman. I had previously been in another beershop at the top of the street, and afterwards walked down. After talking for about 25 minutes I saw two Jews come running along and shouting out "Murder" and "Police." They then ran as far as Grove-street and turned back. I stopped them and asked what was the matter. They replied, "A woman has been murdered." I then went round with them to Berner-street, and into Dutfield's yard, adjoining No. 40, Berner-street. I saw a woman lying just inside the gate. At that time there were about 15 people in the yard, and they were all standing round the body. The majority of them appeared to be Jews. No one touched the body. One of them struck a match, and I lifted up the chin of the deceased with my hand. The chin was slightly warm. Blood was still flowing from the throat. I could see that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and a red and white flower pinned on to her jacket. The body was lying on one side, with the face turned towards the wall. I noticed that blood was running down the gutter. I stood there about five minutes before a constable came. It was the last witness who first arrived. I did not notice any one leave while I was there, but there were a lot of people there, and a person might have got away unnoticed. The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses. I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard. I could not form any opinion about the body having been moved. Several persons stood around. I noticed that the legs of the deceased were drawn up, but the clothes were not disturbed. As soon as the policeman came I stepped back, and afterwards helped to fasten the gates. When I left it was by the front door of the club. Before that I was searched, and gave my name and address. I was also examined by Dr. Phillips.

          To make clear who the policeman were:

          [MA] As soon as Police-constable Lamb arrived I stepped back. I helped him to fasten the gate.

          [Times re Diemschitz] By the candlelight he could see that there was blood. He did not touch the body, but at once went off for the police. He passed several streets without seeing a policeman, and returned without one, although he called out "Police" as loud as he could. A young man whom he had met in Grove-street and told about the murder, returned with him. This young man lifted the woman's head up, and witness for the first time saw that her throat was cut. At the same moment the last witness and the constables arrived.

          So Louis did not find police during his search, but returned to the yard with Spooner, who observed the body.

          Note this is said:
          A young man whom he had met in Grove-street and told about the murder, returned with him.
          Not this:
          He met a young man and woman in Grove-street, told them about the murder, and the man returned with him.
          There was no woman with Spooner. At least, not by that time.

          However, I will address one of your earlier questions as it relates to my point above:

          Why did Diemschitz and Kozebrodsky begin their search for police by going down Fairclough St, and into Grove St - finding no PC, but instead pick up ES, who is conveniently waiting there, alone. The logical place to go for police would have been Commercial Rd, which btw, is closer to 40 Berner St than is Grove St.

          The distance to Commercial Road and the distance to Gove Street from Dutfield's Yard is about the same. It's likely that Diemschutz had hoped or expected to find a policeman around that area at around that time. Morris Eagle had already gone in the direction of Commercial Road for police so the logical place to go after that is in the opposite direction to spread the chance of finding a constable.
          Not sure about 'had already gone', but it was Eagle and someone else who found Lamb:

          Eagle: I ran towards the Commercial-road, Dienishitz, the club steward, and another member going in the opposite direction down Fairclough- street. In Commercial-road I found two constables at the corner of Grove-street. I told them that a woman had been murdered in Berner-street, and they returned with me.

          There is a clear issue with the timing aspect of Spooner's testimony.
          As Diemschitz testimony corroborates Spooner, on this point, it would appear there has been some sort of collusion between the two men.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

            Another aspect running parallel to risk could have been opportunity. If, in fact, he did kill Annie deep into the morning, he may have rationalized that dawn would be breaking within an hour or so, and she provided him with the best opportunity for committing a murder on that particular date and time. Although he may have had the best laid plans for his lustmord [ie. organ harvesting], Annie may have been the only woman that night who provided a willing fateful encounter to accomplish those ends; and do, he was forced to mitigate the risk based on a fleeting opportunity.

            But it also sets a precedence, a man unafraid to commit a ghastly murder in the backyard of an occupied homestead is not going to later suffer the coward's streak at, say, a men's club filled with jovial club members or a woman's apartment with only one entry.
            Well put Robert, and the last paragraph is about where Im at with Profiling. I believe the killer known as Jack the Ripper revealed his blood lust on murders 1 and 2....virtually identical methodologies with increasing violence..within 2 weeks, the opportunistic killer who driven by mad urges kills strangers..women strangers, so he can open them up on the spot. You may well be right about why Annie on that particular night, which is why I make the comments I do about Mary Kellys killer. She was targeted, the murder location pre-established. Annie was there at the wrong time and picked the wrong guy.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              There is a clear issue with the timing aspect of Spooner's testimony.
              As Diemschitz testimony corroborates Spooner, on this point, it would appear there has been some sort of collusion between the two men.
              That would mean you favour a single unsubstantiated account to one that has 4 other independent.... (including Spooner).... witnesses giving the same approximate story and times. Always a fascination to me that people would do that. Youre certainly not alone with those beliefs either, many people take Israel and Louis as being more trustworthy than 4 other corroborating stories.

              Again, fascinating that anyone would do that, let alone what is likely a majority of students. Based on what I see on Schwartz and Diemshutz threads. Its like climbing free hand a sheer 5000 ft wall, when steps could be taken to reduce the risks of error. Some people like the danger I guess.

              To be clear though....4 people said they were with Louis and others, around a dying woman in the passageway at approx 12:40- to 12:45. Only a great leap of faith with both Louis and Israel is required to conclude otherwise.
              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-19-2020, 12:11 PM.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Chava View Post

                Here's where we differ. I think 29 Hanbury Street and 13 Millers Court are functionally the same. There's no way out of the backyard of #29 unless you go through the front door. It's fenced off. Yes, maybe a surprised killer could manage to climb a fence or two. But he's ultimately just as trapped as he would be in Miller's Court. Every witness description says the guy was short--around 5'5". He's shorter than the backyard fence. And, yes, he could have bulldozed through it. But that would have taken valuable time if someone--or many people--were after him. However (gets back on hobby horse) both are larger enclosed areas reached by narrow passageways. Like Mitre Square. Like Duffield's Yard... I still believe that's what triggers him. If a tart just takes him to a dark bit under a bridge I think she's safe. But those ladies including Mary Jane chose very similar locations.
                I agree with this, Chava, but for me it suggests it was typically the victim who dictated the location of her murder, with her killer simply grabbing the opportunity offered to be alone with her, and striking if he thought the risk was worth taking. I can't really see anyone going, against her instincts, to a location of a stranger's choosing, after the second ghastly murder in August, of a woman in similar circumstances. It's possible that Chapman, for example, chose that back yard in Hanbury Street, for the very reason that she believed it would be safe for her because no killer would take the risk.

                I see very little difference between prospective victims who were weakened by poor health and nutrition, exhaustion and/or alcohol, making them vulnerable when open to suggestion - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - and vulnerable if resisting. I suspect Stride died because she angered her killer by refusing to leave the perceived safety of the club grounds, judging that if he meant her any harm he wouldn't risk it in that location. If so, she was only half right. He couldn't risk staying to mutilate her, but he could cut her throat for defying him, and to stop her voicing any suspicions and describing him, while he was looking for another victim.

                I don't see why Kelly's killer had to know her personally, or to know about her room in Miller's Court, when he strolled down Commercial Street that night [if that's what he did] and wondered if opportunity would knock for him. If Kelly was already drunk when they encountered one another, or just looking for someone to ply her with drink, and she was "willing for a shilling" as the saying goes, in case the landlord demanded some back rent in the morning, her killer would have thought all his Christmases had come at once when she took him off laughing, and showed him where they could spend some time alone and undisturbed. And that could have been the case, whether he had ginger whiskers, a blotchy face and a can of ale to share with her, or was Hutchinson's 'Flash Harry', who looked like he was good for a few bob. For both Kelly and Jack, it would have been rude not to.

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  That would mean you favour a single unsubstantiated account to one that has 4 other independent.... (including Spooner).... witnesses giving the same approximate story and times. Always a fascination to me that people would do that. Youre certainly not alone with those beliefs either, many people take Israel and Louis as being more trustworthy than 4 other corroborating stories.

                  Again, fascinating that anyone would do that, let alone what is likely a majority of students. Based on what I see on Schwartz and Diemshutz threads. Its like climbing free hand a sheer 5000 ft wall, when steps could be taken to reduce the risks of error. Some people like the danger I guess.
                  You've completely misunderstood this, Michael.
                  I am not prioritizing Diemschitz (I assume his is the 'single unsubstantiated account' to which you refer) over other accounts.
                  What I am doing is to demonstrate (I hope) that once the order of arrival of PCs is determined (as best I can), then Spooner's testimony leads to a paradox - he must arrive at the yard both before and after Lamb & 426H, given his claims.
                  Furthermore, as Louis' testimony appears to corroborate Spooner's, it raises the possibility that the two men have colluded, to make their respective stories agree.
                  This could have interesting implications, particularly when considered with the other curiosities of Spooner's testimony.
                  You might have noticed that I've been referring to Spooner quite a bit lately, especially in the back-and-forths with Curious Cat.

                  To be clear though....4 people said they were with Louis and others, around a dying woman in the passageway at approx 12:40- to 12:45. Only a great leap of faith with both Louis and Israel is required to conclude otherwise.
                  The problem for you though, is that you aren't clear. You bang-on about these 4 people quite a bit, but how many people reading your posts actually know who these 4 are?
                  My advice to you is to spell out this claim at regular intervals - say once a month. Names, times, and supporting quotes...
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by caz View Post

                    I agree with this, Chava, but for me it suggests it was typically the victim who dictated the location of her murder, with her killer simply grabbing the opportunity offered to be alone with her, and striking if he thought the risk was worth taking. I can't really see anyone going, against her instincts, to a location of a stranger's choosing, after the second ghastly murder in August, of a woman in similar circumstances. It's possible that Chapman, for example, chose that back yard in Hanbury Street, for the very reason that she believed it would be safe for her because no killer would take the risk.

                    I see very little difference between prospective victims who were weakened by poor health and nutrition, exhaustion and/or alcohol, making them vulnerable when open to suggestion - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - and vulnerable if resisting. I suspect Stride died because she angered her killer by refusing to leave the perceived safety of the club grounds, judging that if he meant her any harm he wouldn't risk it in that location. If so, she was only half right. He couldn't risk staying to mutilate her, but he could cut her throat for defying him, and to stop her voicing any suspicions and describing him, while he was looking for another victim.

                    I don't see why Kelly's killer had to know her personally, or to know about her room in Miller's Court, when he strolled down Commercial Street that night [if that's what he did] and wondered if opportunity would knock for him. If Kelly was already drunk when they encountered one another, or just looking for someone to ply her with drink, and she was "willing for a shilling" as the saying goes, in case the landlord demanded some back rent in the morning, her killer would have thought all his Christmases had come at once when she took him off laughing, and showed him where they could spend some time alone and undisturbed. And that could have been the case, whether he had ginger whiskers, a blotchy face and a can of ale to share with her, or was Hutchinson's 'Flash Harry', who looked like he was good for a few bob. For both Kelly and Jack, it would have been rude not to.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Hi Caz,

                    I hope you and your family are all well!

                    I agree re Kelly and Millers Court. I don't see how we have any grounds to believe that Kelly knew her killer beforehand. She let Barnett move in with her immediately after she met him. And she was nothing if not available. I also agree that it's likely the victims chose the location. But I think that the killer stalked the area and knew all these locations--he may not have known 29 Hanbury St specifically. But that wasn't the only house tarts used to bring their tricks. Women on the stroll know all the places they can take a customer without being bothered or chased away. We can't discount the possibility that--like Peter Sutcliffe and Stephen Wright--the Whitechapel murderer had had normal encounters with a lot of the East End tarts and may well have been known to them. He'd have had a good idea of where he could find the places he was looking for. Because as you know I think the geography of the crime meant a great deal to him. So I do think he had some knowledge of that backyard or backyards similar. Something I haven't seen here--or at least it may have been here but I could have missed it--is that the houses had backyard privies. And if the front doors were permanently open, that's somewhere a passer-by might visit if caught short one day or night. So the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street may well have seen visitors who weren't there with prostitutes. If that's the case he can scope away even in the backyards!

                    Love,
                    Chava

                    Comment


                    • Edward Spooner, Issac Kozebrodski, club Member named Gillen, Club member named Hoschberg.

                      Spooner: "Spooner believed that he had first arrived at Dutfield's Yard at "25 minutes to 1"

                      Kozebrodski: "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard."

                      Hoshberg: "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter."

                      Ill find the reference to Gillens statement, which supports the above. Issac K states what time he returned to the club. Half Past. He then says about 10 minutes later he is called by Louis. he gives this statement to the press likely within an hour of the murder discovery. And he clearly used a clock to record his arrival time.

                      Then add the fact that Fanny, who at this time...12:50 to 1am...is continuously at her door to the street and sees no-one but the young couple, it seems clear that Louis arrived earlier than he said he did. And if you read all of Issac K's remarks it seems clear he didnt accompany Louis for help. He says he went alone. Was sent.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chava View Post

                        Hi Caz,

                        I hope you and your family are all well!

                        I agree re Kelly and Millers Court. I don't see how we have any grounds to believe that Kelly knew her killer beforehand. She let Barnett move in with her immediately after she met him. And she was nothing if not available. I also agree that it's likely the victims chose the location. But I think that the killer stalked the area and knew all these locations--he may not have known 29 Hanbury St specifically. But that wasn't the only house tarts used to bring their tricks. Women on the stroll know all the places they can take a customer without being bothered or chased away. We can't discount the possibility that--like Peter Sutcliffe and Stephen Wright--the Whitechapel murderer had had normal encounters with a lot of the East End tarts and may well have been known to them. He'd have had a good idea of where he could find the places he was looking for. Because as you know I think the geography of the crime meant a great deal to him. So I do think he had some knowledge of that backyard or backyards similar. Something I haven't seen here--or at least it may have been here but I could have missed it--is that the houses had backyard privies. And if the front doors were permanently open, that's somewhere a passer-by might visit if caught short one day or night. So the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street may well have seen visitors who weren't there with prostitutes. If that's the case he can scope away even in the backyards!

                        Love,
                        Chava
                        Ahem....came into a small courtyard...the same guy who prowls streets and lanes?....into a small room, while the victim is dressed for bed, apparently the victim had no objection to any of this...this murder evidence almost screams that victim and killer knew each other.

                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Edward Spooner, Issac Kozebrodski, club Member named Gillen, Club member named Hoschberg.

                          Spooner: "Spooner believed that he had first arrived at Dutfield's Yard at "25 minutes to 1"
                          Edward Spooner's "25 minutes to one o'clock", requires 'interpretation'.

                          Kozebrodski: "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard."
                          Okay

                          Hoshberg: "It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter."
                          Okay

                          Ill find the reference to Gillens statement, which supports the above. Issac K states what time he returned to the club. Half Past. He then says about 10 minutes later he is called by Louis. he gives this statement to the press likely within an hour of the murder discovery. And he clearly used a clock to record his arrival time.
                          This is Morris Eagle, in the Tele:

                          After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one. I tried the front door, but, finding it closed, I went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way.

                          I had been there twenty minutes when a member named Gidleman came upstairs, and said "there is a woman dead in the yard."


                          By the way, did Kozebrodsky say he returned at 12:30, or arrived at 12:30?
                          Kind of late to be arriving, don't you think?

                          Then add the fact that Fanny, who at this time...12:50 to 1am...is continuously at her door to the street and sees no-one but the young couple, it seems clear that Louis arrived earlier than he said he did. And if you read all of Issac K's remarks it seems clear he didnt accompany Louis for help. He says he went alone. Was sent.
                          This is Fanny...

                          I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club house. On going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates, with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates. It was just after one o'clock when I went out...

                          Who touched Stride's face, if not Ed Spooner?
                          Had Spooner been in the yard at least 25 minutes, at that point?

                          Re Louis accompanying Isaac or not, I will tell you about that another time...
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Edward Spooner's "25 minutes to one o'clock", requires 'interpretation'.

                            No, it doesnt.


                            This is Morris Eagle, in the Tele:

                            After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home, going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one. I tried the front door, but, finding it closed, I went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way.

                            I had been there twenty minutes when a member named Gidleman came upstairs, and said "there is a woman dead in the yard."


                            You do realize that Ive identified Eagle as a paid attendee, just like Louis, and they both are contradicted by the 3 unpaid attendees and 1 off site witness. Eagle say "I couldnt be sure whether a dead body was there". Look at the physical data, thats just not realistic.

                            By the way, did Kozebrodsky say he returned at 12:30, or arrived at 12:30?
                            Kind of late to be arriving, don't you think?


                            I dont know if this is pedantic, your poor reading or just argumentative, but he states he arrived back at the club.


                            This is Fanny...

                            I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club house. On going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the gates, with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates. It was just after one o'clock when I went out...

                            Who touched Stride's face, if not Ed Spooner?
                            Had Spooner been in the yard at least 25 minutes, at that point?


                            Who says Spooner is the only person who touched her?

                            Re Louis accompanying Isaac or not, I will tell you about that another time...

                            Gee, I can hardly wait, but Issac says explicitly that we was sent out alone. Your "illumination" isnt needed here.
                            Whether you believe I am incorrect or not, perhaps just review the facts and make up your own mind. Im not here to correct people, I want to discuss with knowledgeable people.



                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              Ahem....came into a small courtyard...the same guy who prowls streets and lanes?....into a small room, while the victim is dressed for bed, apparently the victim had no objection to any of this...this murder evidence almost screams that victim and killer knew each other.
                              I'm sorry Michael but we have no evidence for this. Kelly may have introduced the killer into the room while she was up & dressed. He may just have stuck around and looked like like he wanted to stay the night. Like Barnett did.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chava View Post

                                I'm sorry Michael but we have no evidence for this. Kelly may have introduced the killer into the room while she was up & dressed. He may just have stuck around and looked like like he wanted to stay the night. Like Barnett did.
                                Interesting purely speculative opinion, but not founded with what is known. Mary entered her room with someone, presumably someone she knew enough to sing to for over an hour. We dont know when he leaves, but we do know how she was found. In a small courtyard off a mean street, in a room created from a room within #26 Dorset Street, with one exit and almost a 20 ft arched stone tunnel just to get into the court. Almost naked in her own bed. He wasnt there by accident, and wasnt in Marys room while she was undressed by accident. Its either Blotchy, who she apparently knew, or someone after him...which is just guesswork without evidence that can be trusted. In other words, Not Georgies.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X