The Absence Of Evidence

[Ms Diddles]

It’s refreshing to see a thread where no one is claiming as a fact something that they can’t possibly know to be one.

You've probably jinxed it now, Herlock!!!!!

[erobitha]

Can you provide an example of military personnel "specially trained in the art of close combat" that would entail the kind of technique you're thinking of - in the LVP? Close combat in the LVP would consist of fixing a bayonet to a rifle and stabbing with it.

Can you provide an example of such a unit in the British military in the LVP?

Thank you, I certainly will choose not to believe that Special Forces-training from the latter half of the 20th century existed in the 19th century. Guess I am a stickler for both chronology AND evidence. What a drag

I will just thumb through my 1883 manual of "Cut Throat Techniques For Assassination & Close Combat Training". I'm sure it is in there somewhere.

Did you not read my example from the American Civil War? Google "fighting knife" or "bowie knife". Both very good candidates for knives and were used to cut throats in the Civil War. As in the example I provided.

I never said anything about British military.

When I provide you that pesky example from the manual I have, then perhaps you might believe me. Then perhaps I can sleep again at night.

[caz]

I think there is validity in that Caz. The actual killing part of what he did was admin. He derived pleasure from the post-mortem activity. I am leaning towards the idea that Stride was not playing ball and may have started to become suspicious of her gentleman stranger friend.

Jack probably sensed this wasn’t going to go the way he wanted, and the fact she could now give quite a good description. The yard was just about good enough to kill her, but he would have known it was extremely risky as well for that. Hence why he didn’t hang around for long for the main event as it was too hot.

Another point to make is that both Nichols and Chapman had given their killer an easy ride. The risks were all about the locations and potential witnesses in those cases, but a compliant victim was essential if he was to fulfil his desires.

I see a man who lumped all such women together, and was taken aback when Stride turned out to have her own mind, not so desperate or sick that she had to do his bidding. Whether her killer was a stranger or not, she had no idea if he might be responsible for the recent murders of women on the streets - three since early August - and she'd have been naturally more wary by the end of September than any of the previous victims. Eddowes had only just returned from the hopping, and was not yet used to weighing up every man she met in case she was about to make the next day's headlines.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

I will just thumb through my 1883 manual of "Cut Throat Techniques For Assassination & Close Combat Training". I'm sure it is in there somewhere.

Did you not read my example from the American Civil War? Google "fighting knife" or "bowie knife". Both very good candidates for knives and were used to cut throats in the Civil War. As in the example I provided.

I never said anything about British military.

When I provide you that pesky example from the manual I have, then perhaps you might believe me. Then perhaps I can sleep again at night.

Ok. Until then, I guess we're in agreement that a cut throat could not be described as a "military killing technique" in 1888.
Since you cannot find any military units being trained in that technique, I mean.
Personally, I'd think the SOE might have been the place to look if you want to find a point of origin for such things being taught, but you state for a fact that it's been taught in the military since Roman times. Kinda strange that there's no evidence of it, then. I suppose all the units being taught this over the course of two millennia were very, very secretive

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok. Until then, I guess we're in agreement that a cut throat could not be described as a "military killing technique" in 1888.
Since you cannot find any military units being trained in that technique, I mean.
Personally, I'd think the SOE might have been the place to look if you want to find a point of origin for such things being taught, but you state for a fact that it's been taught in the military since Roman times. Kinda strange that there's no evidence of it, then. I suppose all the units being taught this over the course of two millennia were very, very secretive

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

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

Now I know I am in the twilight zone when in the same day I am agreeing with a Trevor AND RJ.

I need to find a very dark room and quickly.

[Kattrup]

I need to find a very dark room and quickly.

No don't, how will you thumb through that manual Throatcutting for Dummies with no light???

[erobitha]

No don't, how will you thumb through that manual Throatcutting for Dummies with no light???

Ha ha

[c.d.]

I will just thumb through my 1883 manual of "Cut Throat Techniques For Assassination & Close Combat Training".

The really scary thing is I don't know if you are kidding or not.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I know how painful it must be for some to have to use facts that dont agree with the fiction theyve created within their own head, but the physical evidence fully supports an engagement from the front with poking into the chest area by the assailant, the victim turning toward the gates to step back out into the street, her scarf being grabbed, pulled and twisted, she loses her balance..he, while holding her by her scarf slides his blade across her throat and drops her. She is visibly untouched from that point on by that assailant. The murder takes perhaps 2 seconds, and is done at the earliest around 12:46 or slightly earlier, but no later than just before 1am. Louis Diemshitz claimed he arrived at 1 but actually did not arrive until after 1am, so he didnt interrupt a murder that takes place just before 1am. Multiple witnesses claim they were with Louis and others by the body from around 12:40 or 12:45, if so he could have interrupted a murder around 12:46. There is no evidence any interuption took place at any time.

[erobitha]

I know how painful it must be for some to have to use facts that dont agree with the fiction theyve created within their own head, but the physical evidence fully supports an engagement from the front with poking into the chest area by the assailant, the victim turning toward the gates to step back out into the street, her scarf being grabbed, pulled and twisted, she loses her balance..he, while holding her by her scarf slides his blade across her throat and drops her. She is visibly untouched from that point on by that assailant. The murder takes perhaps 2 seconds, and is done at the earliest around 12:46 or slightly earlier, but no later than just before 1am. Louis Diemshitz claimed he arrived at 1 but actually did not arrive until after 1am, so he didnt interrupt a murder that takes place just before 1am. Multiple witnesses claim they were with Louis and others by the body from around 12:40 or 12:45, if so he could have interrupted a murder around 12:46. There is no evidence any interuption took place at any time.

Evidence of being ‘poked’? Where was the bruising? Was it a gentle push?

“There was no recent external injury save to the neck.”

No evidence in your first point, so to criticise others for ‘ignoring physical evidence’. Kettle meet pot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know how painful it must be for some to have to use facts that dont agree with the fiction theyve created within their own head, but the physical evidence fully supports an engagement from the front with poking into the chest area by the assailant, the victim turning toward the gates to step back out into the street, her scarf being grabbed, pulled and twisted, she loses her balance..he, while holding her by her scarf slides his blade across her throat and drops her. She is visibly untouched from that point on by that assailant. The murder takes perhaps 2 seconds, and is done at the earliest around 12:46 or slightly earlier, but no later than just before 1am. Louis Diemshitz claimed he arrived at 1 but actually did not arrive until after 1am, so he didnt interrupt a murder that takes place just before 1am. Multiple witnesses claim they were with Louis and others by the body from around 12:40 or 12:45, if so he could have interrupted a murder around 12:46. There is no evidence any interuption took place at any time.

The only thing that’s truly ‘painful’ is to watch someone willingly plum the depths so repeatedly Michael. 18 posters and not a single one agrees with your ludicrous proposition. And what’s more we all know that we could ask 1018 people and every single one without fail would agree that you are entirely and very obviously wrong. A child could see it. Perhaps you should ask one to explain it to you?

Sadly you continue to claim as a fact things that neither you nor i nor anyone can know for a fact because we weren’t there. But if you don’t mind continually embarrassing yourself like this who am I to try and prevent you.

To claim that Diemschutz lied is just part of your comedy cover-up which we know can filed away in the bin where it’s been lying for the last 10+ years.

Multiple witness. Let’s see...

Gilleman.....remember him, the one that you repeatedly lied about and continue to do so......he’s gone.
Morris Eagle......how you ever managed to get this one wrong is simply staggering as he himself said that he first saw the body at 1.00. Gone.
Spooner......well what do you know.....no one agrees with you on your hopelessly biased assessment of his testimony where you very conveniently ignored the part that everyone accepts is the most reliable. It not looking good. He’s gone.
Hoschberg......Oh yeah, the guy who said ‘about’ 12.45 ‘I should think.’ Which in English means that he was guessing. So was there anything else in his statement that might give us a pointer? Yes there is. He went to the yard after hearing a policeman’s whistle. Which only occurred well after 12.45 (in fact, after 1.00) Bye bye Abe
And we conclude with the very obviously mistaken Kozebrodski who was heard along with Diemschutz around 1.00.

Im only repeating what we all know but it’s game over. Even your ‘witnesses’ don’t support you. In fact there never was a game in the first place. Your cover up never happened. You have to resort to making things up to keep it alive. Give it up Michael. Give up the deceit and the twisting and the shoehorning. Thanks for the laughs though.

[Michael W Richards]

Evidence of being ‘poked’. Where was the bruising? Was it a gentle push?

“There was no recent external injury save to the neck. “
No evidence in your first point, so to criticise others for ‘ignoring physical evidence’. Kettle meet pot.

" Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."

"Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut"....
"The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife." "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

.....bruising, grabbed scarf from behind, scarf twisted and cut while falling.....you would think people would check to see about what was claimed by a poster before pronouncing it incorrect. I am always surprised when readily available historical data is challenged. Makes you think people havent done all their basic research before getting on a forum and prouncing people incorrect...

[erobitha]

" Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."

"Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut"....
"The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife." "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

.....bruising, grabbed scarf from behind, scarf twisted and cut while falling.....you would think people would check to see about what was claimed by a poster before pronouncing it incorrect. I am always surprised when readily available historical data is challenged. Makes you think people havent done all their basic research before getting on a forum and prouncing people incorrect...

That's not hard evidence Michael. It's a theory. The very essence of Blackwell's statement is one of theory. He had no idea if she was murdered standing up or falling down. It's a theory. The official autopsy shows no external injuries aside from the neck (and minor abrasion under the arm). That is medical fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

" Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."

"Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut"....
"The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife." "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

.....bruising, grabbed scarf from behind, scarf twisted and cut while falling.....you would think people would check to see about what was claimed by a poster before pronouncing it incorrect. I am always surprised when readily available historical data is challenged. Makes you think people havent done all their basic research before getting on a forum and prouncing people incorrect...

Like people that invent testimony you mean? Errors are one thing but to j8st make things up

Ready to ditch Gilleman yet?