Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Absence Of Evidence

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Let me address you and any other contrary poster....if you are unable to construct scenarios from the evidence provided in the witness statements and the physical evidence, dont waste peoples time by critiquing others that can.
    Neither I nor anyone else has any requirement to provide counter theories. You are the one making the claims. You are the one who is responsable for proving your theory.

    Back in post #134 your claimed that "Wess said it was empty at 12:20-12:30, Eagle said it was empty as he returned at 12:40, Lave said it was empty at 12:35 until 12:45, when he was at the gate smoking, The young couple said it when asked what they saw in terms of activities during that half hour, and Fanny said it as she was at her door "nearly the whole time"...yes, thats her quote, not press manufactured...and saw no-one except for the young couple from 12:35 until 12:55...when she sees Goldstein passing."

    Your claim about Wess is provably false. He was 5 to 15 minutes walk away from the club at "12:20-12:30". Wess could not and did not say anything about how many people were near the club at "12:20-12:30".

    Your claim about Eagle is provably false. Eagle said "I did' see people in Berner street.

    Your claim about Lavee is provably false. Lave said "There was nothing unusual in the street", he did not say the street "was empty". Lave did say "nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions." from 12:30 to 1:00.

    Your claim about the young couple is provably false. The couple did not say Berner Street "was empty", they said they did not hear "any unusual noises" coming from Dutfield's Yard.

    Your claim about Fanny Mortimer quotes one of her statements and ignores a second contradictory statement that appeared in the same edition of the Evening News.

    According to what you call the "press manufactured" quote, Mortimer did not say Berner Street was empty "from 12:35 until 12:55", she said "she saw no one enter or leave" Dutfield's Yard between 12:45 and 12:55.

    According to what you call "her quote", Mortimer said she "did not notice anything unusual" and "There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe anyone enter the gates" and "the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School."

    This is a claim that the man with the bag (Leon Goldstein) was the only man to "pass through the street" during "nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock". It is not proof "that Berner street was empty and deserted from 12:35 until 12:55". It is proof that Fanny Mortimer did not notice Lave, Eagle, Kozebrodski, Letchford, or Schwartz at the times they claim to have been in been on Berner Sreet.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      I appreciate you sharing that with us.
      For years I've maintained the Ripper was not a 'knife-man', he was a strangler. None of the victims were stabbed to death (I've always discounted Tabram), if a killer carries a knife and intent on murder, then typically he uses the knife to kill his victims, not this one.

      The knife is purely for mutilations. This one likes to see, feel & hear the last gasps of life gurgling from his victim as he compresses their throat. This is what he enjoys.
      Mutilations, in my view are more for display to shock the press, public and those finding the bodies. All the bodies are displayed in one way or another.
      This is one reason I suspect the Whitechapel Murderer was, or had been a garroter at some point in time.
      Strangling is what excited him, mutilations made him famous (or infamous).
      That's an interesting idea, though I disagree. I think strangling was a means to an end for the Ripper and that the mutilations were his goal. The Ripper probably started by stabbing his victims, then switched to the strangulation/throat cutting combination as a better method for incapacitating the victim and reducing the amount of blood he got on himself.

      That said, do you have any examples of death by strangulation that might have been early attempts by the Ripper?

      For my theory, Annie Millword and Martha Tabram might have been early attacks by the Ripper before he had fully developed his MO.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        That's an interesting idea, though I disagree. I think strangling was a means to an end for the Ripper and that the mutilations were his goal. The Ripper probably started by stabbing his victims, then switched to the strangulation/throat cutting combination as a better method for incapacitating the victim and reducing the amount of blood he got on himself.

        That said, do you have any examples of death by strangulation that might have been early attempts by the Ripper?

        For my theory, Annie Millword and Martha Tabram might have been early attacks by the Ripper before he had fully developed his MO.
        bingo fiver.
        it was all about the knife for the ripper. theres also bruising evidence that suggest maybe some of the victims may not have been strangled at all to incapacitate, but knocked out. mary kelly seems he went straight for cutting the throat since she was already passed out. either way, i agree, any strangulation was a means to an end.or if he did enjoy it, it was still only secondary to the mutilations.

        stranglers, like btk, tend not to be post mortem types like the ripper. they get off on strangling, letting victim regain consciousness, strangle again etc. they are torturers and sadists. unlike the ripper. rader said, it was all about the rope. with the ripper, it was all about the knife.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          But we have valid reasons.

          Diemschutz had no reason to lie about the time that he discovered the body.
          He saw a clock just before he arrived.
          He knew how long it took to get from clock to yard.
          If the clock said 1.00 then it was physically possible for him to get to the yard with the clock still at 1.00.
          Even if it was actually 1.01 there’s no issue at all.
          Eagle said that he was called to the body around 1.00.

          We allow for leeway because we know for a fact that most people had no watch.
          Diemschitz' clock based time is used to discount the times given by several other witnesses, including police.
          If everyone is out of time except your Louis, you have to make the timeline work without granting yourself any favours, and without ignoring any evidence.
          The period from the cart entering yard to the commencement of the search took minutes, not one minute.
          The very people involved in the search, and contributors to their own onsite paper, gave a search time of 10 minutes. Press reports add support to an extended search time.
          Frank calculated Eagle's journey to Leman street station as being about 5 minutes...

          And then, on to Eagle, who was sent for the Leman Street Police Station. Going there by way of Commercial Street, the distance would have been some 610 meters. Going there by Fairclough Street, Backchurch Lane and Hooper Street, it would have been some 515 meters. Running there at a speed of 2 m/s (7.2 km/hr, a slow jogging speed), it would have taken Eagle 5 minutes and 5 seconds to cover 610 meters.

          All this has to occur by 1:10.

          The simple solution is have Diemschitz arriving before 1am - several minutes before - so that he really arrived at "about one o'clock", rather than precisely so.
          Ironically, "about" was the word Diemschitz spoke to the press. It was also the word used in Arbeter Fraint, after Diemschitz' inquest appearance.
          Clearly the word 'precisely' was used at the inquest, to give his timing more weight.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            Fanny Mortimer's statement does not disprove my point about the multiple statements she made. Both statements occur in the same edition of the Evening News, yet you claim one as "her quote" and dismiss the other as "press manufactured".

            According to what you call the "press manufactured" quote "During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time."
            When we here from Fanny via a press report of a police report, obtained in an unknown format, we get...

            During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.

            Yet when we we here from Fanny directly, we get...

            There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates.
            If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him.


            ... and ...

            He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

            Rather different.
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              Diemschitz' clock based time is used to discount the times given by several other witnesses, including police.
              If everyone is out of time except your Louis, you have to make the timeline work without granting yourself any favours, and without ignoring any evidence.
              The period from the cart entering yard to the commencement of the search took minutes, not one minute.
              The very people involved in the search, and contributors to their own onsite paper, gave a search time of 10 minutes. Press reports add support to an extended search time.
              Frank calculated Eagle's journey to Leman street station as being about 5 minutes...

              And then, on to Eagle, who was sent for the Leman Street Police Station. Going there by way of Commercial Street, the distance would have been some 610 meters. Going there by Fairclough Street, Backchurch Lane and Hooper Street, it would have been some 515 meters. Running there at a speed of 2 m/s (7.2 km/hr, a slow jogging speed), it would have taken Eagle 5 minutes and 5 seconds to cover 610 meters.

              All this has to occur by 1:10.

              The simple solution is have Diemschitz arriving before 1am - several minutes before - so that he really arrived at "about one o'clock", rather than precisely so.
              Ironically, "about" was the word Diemschitz spoke to the press. It was also the word used in Arbeter Fraint, after Diemschitz' inquest appearance.
              Clearly the word 'precisely' was used at the inquest, to give his timing more weight.
              Why would there be a need at the Inquest to add a word just to give Diemschutz timing more weight? No one was doubting his timing as he’d seen a clock less than a minute before arriving at the yard.

              I don’t see why we ‘need’ Diemschutz discovering the body before 1.00? Why is Eagle being sent to Leman Street at around 1.05 arriving at 1.10 an issue? We have to remember ‘leeway’ of course so if it was stated that Eagle arrived at 1.10 it might actually have been 1.11 or 1.12 and, as Frank has Eagle running at a ‘slow jog,’ we have to consider that he might have run a fair bit quicker reducing his journey time by a minute or two.

              I have to return to the question of why Diemschutz would have lied about the time that he found the body? The cover up idea can safely be discarded as we know. He saw a clock, which ‘might’ have been wrong of course, and so he could give a pretty accurate time that he arrived at the yard. If we stop taking times as exact or assuming a mystery/cover up then there really is little problem. Even if Schwartz lied or exaggerated or misjudged what he saw (and the possibility exists) it still doesn’t even come close to meaning that there was anything mysterious going on.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                When we here from Fanny via a press report of a police report, obtained in an unknown format, we get...

                During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact.

                Yet when we we here from Fanny directly, we get...

                There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates.
                If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him.


                ... and ...

                He might ha' been coming from the Socialist Club.

                Rather different.
                I find it difficult to place much weight on Fanny Mortimer as we just can’t be certain exactly what time she was actually on her doorstep and when she was inside. The conflicting versions make her a grey area. Unsafe to rely on to quote Mr Marriott. Consequently the fact that she didn’t see Schwartz can’t be used as proof that he wasn’t there. The actual Schwartz Incident would have taken a matter of seconds and might easily have occurred during the time that she’d returned indoors. Obviously we can’t state this as a fact but the possibility certain exists so it’s fairly pointless to claim Mortimer as disproving Schwartz (it’s similar to the idea of interruption - we can’t prove that interruption took place but the possibility exists and as long as it exists we can’t we can’t assume that the killer wasn’t the ripper) And so just because Mrs M didn’t see Schwartz it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t there - only that she didn’t see him. We have to remember of course that we can take Schwartz time as being spot-on either. Leeway

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Why would there be a need at the Inquest to add a word just to give Diemschutz timing more weight? No one was doubting his timing as he’d seen a clock less than a minute before arriving at the yard.
                  Good question. I think the the answer is simple though; to clear the decks.
                  Diemschitz 'precisely one o'clock' means; other than the murder itself, nothing of significance happened until 1am, when he discovered the body. So you (the jury), can forget all those rumours you've heard about chases up Fairclough St, and whatnot.

                  I don’t see why we ‘need’ Diemschutz discovering the body before 1.00?
                  Because Smith's testimony precludes it.
                  The search took around 10 minutes.
                  There was a significant lapse of time between discovery and commencement of search.
                  Other witness testimony leans earlier than 1am.
                  There is a fifth reason not discussed recently.

                  Why is Eagle being sent to Leman Street at around 1.05 arriving at 1.10 an issue?
                  For starters; Eagle returned with Lamb. Spooner arrived 5 minutes before that ... which means 1am.

                  We have to remember ‘leeway’ of course so if it was stated that Eagle arrived at 1.10 it might actually have been 1.11 or 1.12 and, as Frank has Eagle running at a ‘slow jog,’ we have to consider that he might have run a fair bit quicker reducing his journey time by a minute or two.
                  So by 'leeway', you really mean 'margin of error'. So 1:10 becomes 1:09-1:11, or even 1:08-1:12.

                  Frank may have done his estimate cognizant of the fact that Eagle may have been drinking.

                  I have to return to the question of why Diemschutz would have lied about the time that he found the body?
                  "Why would he lie?" - is not my style. What if I don't happen to think of the actual reason, or settle on one that is false?
                  I prefer to just look keep looking at the evidence until I see inconsistencies, anomalies, underappreciated points, and potential links.
                  And it's all just data to me. Diemschitz seems to have been well regarded: data. Le Grand, not so: data. Schwartz was Jewish: data.

                  The cover up idea can safely be discarded as we know.
                  It's set to make a surprise comeback

                  He saw a clock, which ‘might’ have been wrong of course, and so he could give a pretty accurate time that he arrived at the yard. If we stop taking times as exact or assuming a mystery/cover up then there really is little problem. Even if Schwartz lied or exaggerated or misjudged what he saw (and the possibility exists) it still doesn’t even come close to meaning that there was anything mysterious going on.
                  Why would he lie?
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment




                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Why would there be a need at the Inquest to add a word just to give Diemschutz timing more weight? No one was doubting his timing as he’d seen a clock less than a minute before arriving at the yard.


                    >Good question. I think the the answer is simple though; to clear the decks.
                    Diemschitz 'precisely one o'clock' means; other than the murder itself, nothing of significance happened until 1am, when he discovered the body. So you (the jury), can forget all those rumours you've heard about chases up Fairclough St, and whatnot.<

                    But there was never any implication that anything of significance apart from the murder occurred before 1.00. Whether Diemschutz said ‘precisely’ or it was added he still said 1.00 and he qualified this by saying that he’d arrived at this time after seeing a clock less than a minute before discovering the body. So he can’t be accused of trying to override rumours that he wasn’t aware of.

                    ....


                    I don’t see why we ‘need’ Diemschutz discovering the body before 1.00?


                    <Because Smith's testimony precludes it.
                    The search took around 10 minutes.
                    There was a significant lapse of time between discovery and commencement of search.
                    Other witness testimony leans earlier than 1am.
                    There is a fifth reason not discussed recently.<

                    The search didn’t take 10 minutes and Smith doesn’t preclude it. You’re making unwarranted assumptions. Those other witnesses are beyond weak and very obviously mistaken.

                    ......


                    Why is Eagle being sent to Leman Street at around 1.05 arriving at 1.10 an issue?
                    For starters; Eagle returned with Lamb. Spooner arrived 5 minutes before that ... which means 1am.

                    >We have to remember ‘leeway’ of course so if it was stated that Eagle arrived at 1.10 it might actually have been 1.11 or 1.12 and, as Frank has Eagle running at a ‘slow jog,’ we have to consider that he might have run a fair bit quicker reducing his journey time by a minute or two.
                    So by 'leeway', you really mean 'margin of error'. So 1:10 becomes 1:09-1:11, or even 1:08-1:12.

                    Frank may have done his estimate cognizant of the fact that Eagle may have been drinking.

                    I have to return to the question of why Diemschutz would have lied about the time that he found the body?
                    "Why would he lie?" - is not my style. What if I don't happen to think of the actual reason, or settle on one that is false?
                    I prefer to just look keep looking at the evidence until I see inconsistencies, anomalies, underappreciated points, and potential links.
                    And it's all just data to me. Diemschitz seems to have been well regarded: data. Le Grand, not so: data. Schwartz was Jewish: data.<

                    And this is the problem of course. Reading far to much into inconsistencies that very naturally occur in cases like this. Compounded of course by the general lack accuracy in recording times (for very obvious reasons) It’s easy to start seeing connections or imagining links.

                    .....


                    The cover up idea can safely be discarded as we know.
                    It's set to make a surprise comeback

                    You obviously have a far higher tolerance for nonsense than I do. Conspiracist thinking is the curse of the modern age. The idea that there was a cover up in Berner Street is worse than a joke. It’s a complete and utter waste of everyone’s time and should be utterly and categorically dismissed by everyone. Diemschutz discovered the body when he said that he did without a solitary shred of doubt.

                    .......

                    He saw a clock, which ‘might’ have been wrong of course, and so he could give a pretty accurate time that he arrived at the yard. If we stop taking times as exact or assuming a mystery/cover up then there really is little problem. Even if Schwartz lied or exaggerated or misjudged what he saw (and the possibility exists) it still doesn’t even come close to meaning that there was anything mysterious going on.

                    >Why would he lie?<

                    He wouldn’t and he didn’t. Less imagination and more reason is required before the subject of Ripperology is regarded by all as the domain of Flat Earther types.

                    Comment


                    • Irate replies to posts: data
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I find it difficult to place much weight on Fanny Mortimer as we just can’t be certain exactly what time she was actually on her doorstep and when she was inside. The conflicting versions make her a grey area. Unsafe to rely on to quote Mr Marriott. Consequently the fact that she didn’t see Schwartz can’t be used as proof that he wasn’t there. The actual Schwartz Incident would have taken a matter of seconds and might easily have occurred during the time that she’d returned indoors. Obviously we can’t state this as a fact but the possibility certain exists so it’s fairly pointless to claim Mortimer as disproving Schwartz (it’s similar to the idea of interruption - we can’t prove that interruption took place but the possibility exists and as long as it exists we can’t we can’t assume that the killer wasn’t the ripper) And so just because Mrs M didn’t see Schwartz it doesn’t mean that he wasn’t there - only that she didn’t see him. We have to remember of course that we can take Schwartz time as being spot-on either. Leeway
                        You want leeway? I'll give you leeway!

                        Let's assume Fanny actual were outside around the 12:45 mark, and no Schwartz incident.

                        However, let's assume this report is factual. Echo, Oct 1:

                        The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.

                        So at some point that night, Stride surely was thrown to the ground.

                        So what point? Let's assume this report is fairly accurate (same edition):

                        From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
                        "We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."


                        So that's probably 12:00 to 12:30 accounted for, so let's go back further...

                        William Marshall: I live at 64 Berner-street, Commercial-road, and am a labourer. On Sunday last I saw the body of deceased in the mortuary. I recognize it as that of a woman I saw on Saturday evening about three doors off from where I am living in Berner-street. That was about a quarter to 12. ... She was standing talking to a man.

                        How did the man look?

                        The CORONER. - Can you describe the man? -There was no lamp near and I did not see the face of the man she was talking to. He had on a small black coat and dark trousers. He seemed to be a middle-aged man.
                        The CORONER. - What sort of cap was he wearing? - A round cap with a sort of peak to it; something like what a sailor would wear.
                        The CORONER. - What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in., and he was rather stout. He was decently dressed, and I should say he worked at some light business, and had more the appearance of a clerk than anything else.
                        The CORONER. - Did you see whether he had any whiskers? - From what I saw of his face I do not think he had. He was not wearing gloves, and he had no stick or anything in his hand.
                        The CORONER. - What sort of coat was it? - A cut-away one.


                        So ...

                        black cut-away coat and dark trousers, middle-aged, round cap with a peak, like a sailors, 5'6", rather stout, appearance of a clerk, no whiskers, no gloves or anything in hands.

                        Now, substituting the age given in the Echo assault report, for that given by Schwartz for his first man, the first man (BS) becomes...

                        age 35 to 40 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

                        From which I surmise ...

                        Marshall's Man was Broad Shouldered Man
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                          Irate replies to posts: data
                          You mistake ‘irate’ for ‘exasperated.’

                          You start from the viewpoint that ‘discrepancy’ equates to lies and conspiracy. I come from a starting point that genuine errors are far a more likely explanation and that they are inevitable.

                          There isn’t anything about your points that cannot be explained when we allow for a margin of error. If we take every timing as a literal fact then we can create any amount of scenario’s on the flimsiest of bases. To even consider some kind of cover-up we would need something completely inexplicable. It would also help if we had valid reasons why witnesses might have lied, but none exist. The idea that club members first concern was the potential closing of there club because the police might have blamed them for ‘hosting’ a ripper murder is nothing short of preposterous. That they would then have arranged for a ‘witness’ like Schwartz simply to imply that the killer wasn’t Jewish (leaving aside the suggestion that they would choose a ‘witness’ who couldn’t even speak English - despite your repeated efforts to imply that he might actually have been able to - is again, preposterous)

                          Witnesses like Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were very clearly mistaken. Spooner has to be eliminated by his own words. Eagle backs up Diemschutz discovery time. It all fits. We don’t know who killed Elizabeth Stride but we know with certainty that she died between 12.45 and 1.00.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            You want leeway? I'll give you leeway!

                            Let's assume Fanny actual were outside around the 12:45 mark, and no Schwartz incident.

                            However, let's assume this report is factual. Echo, Oct 1:

                            The police authorities have received an important statement in reference to the Berner-street crime. It is to the effect that a man between 35 and 40 years of age, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground. It was thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and consequently no notice was taken of it.

                            So at some point that night, Stride surely was thrown to the ground.

                            So what point? Let's assume this report is fairly accurate (same edition):

                            From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
                            "We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."


                            So that's probably 12:00 to 12:30 accounted for, so let's go back further...

                            William Marshall: I live at 64 Berner-street, Commercial-road, and am a labourer. On Sunday last I saw the body of deceased in the mortuary. I recognize it as that of a woman I saw on Saturday evening about three doors off from where I am living in Berner-street. That was about a quarter to 12. ... She was standing talking to a man.

                            How did the man look?

                            The CORONER. - Can you describe the man? -There was no lamp near and I did not see the face of the man she was talking to. He had on a small black coat and dark trousers. He seemed to be a middle-aged man.
                            The CORONER. - What sort of cap was he wearing? - A round cap with a sort of peak to it; something like what a sailor would wear.
                            The CORONER. - What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in., and he was rather stout. He was decently dressed, and I should say he worked at some light business, and had more the appearance of a clerk than anything else.
                            The CORONER. - Did you see whether he had any whiskers? - From what I saw of his face I do not think he had. He was not wearing gloves, and he had no stick or anything in his hand.
                            The CORONER. - What sort of coat was it? - A cut-away one.


                            So ...

                            black cut-away coat and dark trousers, middle-aged, round cap with a peak, like a sailors, 5'6", rather stout, appearance of a clerk, no whiskers, no gloves or anything in hands.

                            Now, substituting the age given in the Echo assault report, for that given by Schwartz for his first man, the first man (BS) becomes...

                            age 35 to 40 ht, 5 ft 5 in. comp. fair hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands.

                            From which I surmise ...

                            Marshall's Man was Broad Shouldered Man
                            And by the time that Israel Schwartz saw him he’d apparently put on a false moustache? A stocky man in dark clothing and wearing a cap. I’m not saying that it couldn’t have been the same man but I’d say that we can’t assume it. I can’t see how this helps in any way or what you are deducing from it>

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              You are totally correct

                              The spanner in the works comes from one of the doctors who said that a butcher could effect such removals which is beyond comprehension even back then, which researchers have wrongly picked up on to negate the knowledge clearly needed to not only locate the organs but remove them as well.

                              I dont see any evidence of butchers doubling up as surgeons at the local hopsitals

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              That's quite funny, Trev, because unless I'm very much mistaken, Michael Richards [to whom you addressed the above post] suspects a butcher - and a mad one at that - of locating and removing Chapman's uterus.

                              Love,

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


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                Diemschitz' clock based time is used to discount the times given by several other witnesses, including police.
                                If everyone is out of time except your Louis, you have to make the timeline work without granting yourself any favours, and without ignoring any evidence.
                                The period from the cart entering yard to the commencement of the search took minutes, not one minute.
                                The very people involved in the search, and contributors to their own onsite paper, gave a search time of 10 minutes. Press reports add support to an extended search time.
                                Frank calculated Eagle's journey to Leman street station as being about 5 minutes...

                                And then, on to Eagle, who was sent for the Leman Street Police Station. Going there by way of Commercial Street, the distance would have been some 610 meters. Going there by Fairclough Street, Backchurch Lane and Hooper Street, it would have been some 515 meters. Running there at a speed of 2 m/s (7.2 km/hr, a slow jogging speed), it would have taken Eagle 5 minutes and 5 seconds to cover 610 meters.

                                All this has to occur by 1:10.

                                The simple solution is have Diemschitz arriving before 1am - several minutes before - so that he really arrived at "about one o'clock", rather than precisely so.
                                Ironically, "about" was the word Diemschitz spoke to the press. It was also the word used in Arbeter Fraint, after Diemschitz' inquest appearance.
                                Clearly the word 'precisely' was used at the inquest, to give his timing more weight.
                                All this presumes that the clock Louis saw was showing the correct time, to within 30 seconds. Is there any evidence of this?

                                I believe him when he said he timed his arrival by the clock, but if that clock was out, by 30 seconds or more either way, then the word "precisely" would be unintentionally misleading.

                                Also, estimated timings, where a clock or watch has not been consulted, are invariably rounded up or down to the nearest five minutes at best. That's just human nature, but the result is that it can make a heck of a difference, when multiple witnesses are contributing to a timeline of events, each of which could have happened in less than a minute.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X