Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Absence Of Evidence

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    How much training does it take to learn how to attack someome from behind and cut their throat?

    Isnt that a better and more efficient way than wrestling someone to the ground and then trying to make a clean cut to the throat while they are on the ground and perhaps still struggling?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    You mention the word 'learn', Trev. If Stride's killer had never cut a throat before, he had to teach himself the best and safest way to do it in that busy location, and still he managed to kill her efficiently with a single slice, giving her no chance to scream or struggle. Would it really have been that easy for anyone to do?

    Love,

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


    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by erobitha View Post
      How do you know Baxter had no prior knowledge of Schwartz’s police statement?
      If you can't put two and two together, I'm not going to help you. I've given you the hint for free; lessons in logic will cost you.

      But I think most astute people here can figure out why you are so eager to dismiss Schwartz, as well as Phillips.

      "The horse shied, so the bitch died!" or some such rubbish is what informs your opinions.

      It's sad, really.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by c.d. View Post
        The police were desperate to find their man, so any report from a woman who had been subjected to abuse by a stranger, or just his unwelcome attentions, would have been potentially significant.

        In theory, yes but the police did not have the manpower to do a full investigation of every woman in Whitechapel that got pushed, sworn at, insulted or slapped. Whitechapel was a rough place with rough men. I just can't imagine the police saying "a woman out by herself late at night right after the pubs closed got pushed. This has to be our man."

        c.d.
        You have a point, c.d, because the vast majority of women like Stride, even at the height of the scare, would not have thought to report such minor incidents, and probably didn't trust the police anyway. But would the ripper have taken that chance, if he had spent some time in the company of a prospective victim, only for it all to go tits up because she got the willies? Would he have reasoned that because she wasn't likely to voice any suspicions she had about him, and the police wouldn't take her seriously if she did, he could safely let her walk? She could have had plenty to say about how he had tried his luck with her, which would have been a problem if the papers got hold of it. He'd have needed to change his technique with future victims for a start. Why take that needless risk because it might never happen?

        Love,

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


        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by c.d. View Post

          Exactly my point. Literally hundreds of men were questioned but no one was ever charged with the murders. So a reasonable assumption would be that if the B.S. man had committed the prior murders the prospect of simply being stopped and questioned wouldn't have been a motivating factor to kill Stride.

          c.d.
          Not the only factor, perhaps, c.d, but killing Stride would at least have left the ripper free to kill again, without having to worry about what she may have learned about him and his motives from their encounter. The one sure way to guarantee that what she knew could never hurt him was to cut her throat, just as he would shortly do to Eddowes. Seems like a no-brainer to me, and it's not like he'd have had much time to weigh up the pros and cons.

          Love,

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


          Comment


          • #95
            Sorry, but you are losing me here, Caz. You seem to be implying that the Ripper would have told Stride who he was, all of the women that he killed (along with the details) and where he kept their organs and other items he might have taken from them. So yes, in that instance, it is a no-brainer he has to kill her.

            But if he simply had approached her for sex and/or pushed her I see no reason to kill her.

            c.d.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              Personally, I am of the opinion that Schwartz witnessed Stride's murder, but was confused about what he had seen, which is exceedingly common when someone sees a violent confrontation.

              All the best.
              But it wouldn't get us anywhere, RJ, because if Schwartz didn't believe he was witnessing the actual murder, he effectively didn't witness it, and we are back to square one. It's 50/50 at best, isn't it?

              What seems clear is that BS man became aware at some point that he had an audience while he was manhandling Stride, causing him to call out "Lipski". I'm not sure I can buy the idea that he would have proceeded to cut her throat while Schwartz was in a position to have witnessed this too. It's one thing for Schwartz to have been confused about what he was seeing, but quite another for the killer to go ahead regardless of this man's presence. BS man couldn't have trusted to luck that Schwartz would not see precisely what was happening.

              On balance I do think Stride was alive when Schwartz left the scene, but who knows for how much longer?

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


              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                I must be like Jesus. He was very good at walking on water.

                Firstly, the theory of pulling Stride back via her scarf was Blackwell's theory. You know I enjoy a jolly good theory like the next man.

                Secondly, Bagster Phillips did write what you wrote, but it is not a declaration that the bruising was connected to the attack. It was recent, and he would have known himself it could have happened independently of the attack. Medically, it simply was an aknowledgement that the bruises were recent. It might be relevant, it might not. He did not directly connect them to the attack. You have decided to append that medical fact yourself to the official report.

                Schwartz's statement has never stood up well for me:

                1) Can't speak English but recognises the local derogatory anti-semitic insult of 'Lipski' perfectly
                2) None of his story correlates with other witness reports. Unlike Fanny Mortimer who did see Leon Goldstein, heard footsteps on the cobbles (assuming it to be police) and also heard then the horse and cart entering the yard
                3) Stride would have had ample time to scream blue murder if she was just thrown to the ground. Nosey Fanny Mortimer most likely would have heard that like the other things she did see and hear. Schwartz didn't claim to see the suspect commit murder, so she was alive at the point of the so-called throw down. If she banged her head and was unconcious would such an injury not show post-mortem? Maybe swelling or a cut?
                4) He claimed to have run towards a railway arch to shake off the men he believed to be chasing him. What railway arch exactly? Where is this railway arch on Berner Street?
                5) How can he an ID a woman he barely saw if she was thrown to the ground as he was crossing the street?

                Schwartz may have seen an attack similar to this, but I doubt very much it was where he thought it was. Red herring witness in my view.
                yes you really are flailing ero
                Firstly, the theory of pulling Stride back via her scarf was Blackwell's theory. You know I enjoy a jolly good theory like the next man.
                her scarf was pulled tight, it dosnt matter what or who noted it. its perfectly in line with what happened during the bs man attack. he probably used it to grab a hold of her and or choke/drag her with it.


                1) Can't speak English but recognises the local derogatory anti-semitic insult of 'Lipski' perfectly
                nothing could be further from the truth. there was total confusion on this and schwartz thought he might have been yelling someones name and or directed at pipeman. it took abberlines astute knowledge of the local community to sort it out.

                2) None of his story correlates with other witness reports. Unlike Fanny Mortimer who did see Leon Goldstein, heard footsteps on the cobbles (assuming it to be police) and also heard then the horse and cart entering the yard
                wrong. his description of b-man including the peaked cap matches well not only with other witnesses at the stride murder but also of the eddowes murder.
                3) Stride would have had ample time to scream blue murder if she was just thrown to the ground. Nosey Fanny Mortimer most likely would have heard that like the other things she did see and hear. Schwartz didn't claim to see the suspect commit murder, so she was alive at the point of the so-called throw down. If she banged her head and was unconcious would such an injury not show post-mortem? Maybe swelling or a cu
                she did yell out though not very loudly-she probably wasnt aware of how much damger she was actually in. or perhaps she had already had her throat cut at that point. and your constant reference s to useless busybody witness mortimer is telling. shes trinket.
                4) He claimed to have run towards a railway arch to shake off the men he believed to be chasing him. What railway arch exactly? Where is this railway arch on Berner Street?
                who cares its a minor non important point. he may have run to any arch/bridge and possibly took a round about way to home if he thought people were following him.

                5) How can he an ID a woman he barely saw if she was thrown to the ground as he was crossing the street?
                ummm. because he saw her?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  Sorry, but you are losing me here, Caz. You seem to be implying that the Ripper would have told Stride who he was, all of the women that he killed (along with the details) and where he kept their organs and other items he might have taken from them. So yes, in that instance, it is a no-brainer he has to kill her.

                  But if he simply had approached her for sex and/or pushed her I see no reason to kill her.

                  c.d.
                  Clearly I'm imagining a scenario, in this instance, in which the ripper might have a spent a little time in Stride's company, working on her and expecting to get somewhere - because he'd used a similar tactic on Nichols and Chapman and it had worked both times like a charm. I don't believe he first saw Nichols in Buck's Row, or Chapman in the Hanbury Street back yard. If Stride finally made it clear that she wasn't interested in what her killer claimed to want from her, and was refusing to budge from the club's premises, where she may have walked to try and get shot of him, that's when he could have decided to kill her and move on.

                  Clearly I'm not imagining a scenario in which the ripper saw Stride for the first time standing by Dutfield's Yard, and killed her in case she could have related his life story to the cops.

                  Alternatively, BS man could be a red herring, who saw Stride standing there [either waiting for, or trying to avoid someone] and gave her a shove before leaving the scene to the man who killed her. The killer's 'powers of persuasion' could then have been attempted, unwitnessed, between BS man's departure and Louis D's arrival - but could still have begun earlier that evening, if he followed her to the club and then had to wait for BS man to sling his hook.

                  Many possibilities here that I wouldn't rule out.

                  Why do you think Stride ended up with her throat cut?

                  Love,

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


                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Why do you think Stride ended up with her throat cut?

                    I think she was killed by the Ripper. Why he killed I don't know but I don't think the B.S. man was the Ripper.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      Why do you think Stride ended up with her throat cut?

                      I think she was killed by the Ripper. Why he killed I don't know but I don't think the B.S. man was the Ripper.

                      c.d.
                      Absolutely fair enough, c.d.

                      But if the ripper got her, do we really need a reason why? We know for a fact that he went out with a knife that night with murder in mind, and we also know he achieved that aim at least once.

                      Whether or not he was BS man, I see several possible reasons why he didn't leave Stride alive.

                      What I struggle with is a motive for anyone else to have killed her. Whoever did it was prepared to swing for her if caught, and a one-off murder by someone connected to the victim should have been solvable.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X


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


                      Comment


                      • What I struggle with is a motive for anyone else to have killed her. Whoever did it was prepared to swing for her if caught, and a one-off murder by someone connected to the victim should have been solvable.

                        And an investigation by the police attempting to find just such a connection to someone in her life turned up nothing. Could the police have missed it? Sure. So take it for what you think it is worth.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          Absolutely fair enough, c.d.

                          But if the ripper got her, do we really need a reason why? We know for a fact that he went out with a knife that night with murder in mind, and we also know he achieved that aim at least once.

                          Whether or not he was BS man, I see several possible reasons why he didn't leave Stride alive.

                          What I struggle with is a motive for anyone else to have killed her. Whoever did it was prepared to swing for her if caught, and a one-off murder by someone connected to the victim should have been solvable.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X

                          Hi Caz

                          Have you not considered a motive may have been domestic violence with Michael Kidney her b/f being responsible ?

                          In the heat of the moment it is not always to think about the consequences of ones actions.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                            What I struggle with is a motive for anyone else to have killed her. Whoever did it was prepared to swing for her if caught, and a one-off murder by someone connected to the victim should have been solvable.

                            And an investigation by the police attempting to find just such a connection to someone in her life turned up nothing. Could the police have missed it? Sure. So take it for what you think it is worth.

                            c.d.
                            We know nothing about the police investigation into Michael Kidney

                            Stride stated to two different people that she had left Kidney, after they had argued, on the Thursday before she was murdered. Kidney stated that he last saw her on the Tuesday and they had not been arguing.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Hello Trevor,

                              Are we to believe that it never would have occurred to the police to ask Kidney for an alibi?

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                                Hello Trevor,

                                Are we to believe that it never would have occurred to the police to ask Kidney for an alibi?

                                c.d.
                                Nothing should be taken for granted with regards to Victorian police investigations

                                The discrepancies are there for all to see in the inquest testimony which no one picked up on!

                                Don Rumbellow also subscribes to her being the victim of domestic violence!

                                And not forgetting all the diferneces in her murder compared to the rest of the murders. Clearly grounds to suggest a different killer

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X