The Absence Of Evidence

[caz]

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

Hmmm, I seem to recall dear Don Rumbelow arguing for a domestic murder because he thought the knife that killed Stride was blunt!!!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes, and you are forgetting the main cause of deaths by the use of as knife was throat cutting in Victorian times

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So are you saying Stride's killer had previous experience of overpowering someone with no fuss, and killing them quickly, with a single cut to the throat? Or no previous experience necessary, in your view?

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

I have indeed considered this, Trev, but I don't see any compelling evidence against Kidney. Nor did the police, and I do very occasionally trust their judgement.

In the heat of what moment? Were they having a shouting match? A one-off killer, suddenly losing his temper with Stride and not thinking about the consequences, nevertheless manages to inflict a single fatal wound like a pro, with cool, quiet efficiency, then slips away into the night, confident he has silenced her for good? It just doesn't seem all that likely to me, but then I've never been in that position myself.

Love,

Caz
X

There doesn't seem to be any heat of the moment. More the cool of the moment as you say. No shouting match that anyone heard. Stride is not slapped around, i.e., blows to the face. No frenzy of multiple stab wounds to the body. No torn clothing. If anger was the motive it seems to have been well controlled.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hmmm, I seem to recall dear Don Rumbelow arguing for a domestic murder because he thought the knife that killed Stride was blunt!!!

Love,

Caz
X

No Caz, thats the view of the argument for a non-ripped Ripper victim here, not the knife.

Ok, seriously...about Kidney....what if...what if Kidney hears that just after breaking up with him she has a date with a local Jew. What if he has biases...he does seem to indicate that he feels he knows who was behind this and if he could stake out several locations where he thinks they should be looking, and with "several" men (police) he would find him...did he mean other clubs in the area? Was he insinuating he thought a "Jew" who frequents a club like the Berner St one was responsible? Is that a sign of prejudice if so, or misdirection using his own bias?

[caz]

No Caz, thats the view of the argument for a non-ripped Ripper victim here, not the knife.

I'm not with you. Don Rumbelow claimed the knife that killed Stride was blunt. He was speaking at a Whitechapel Society meeting and this was one reason he doubted she was killed by the ripper.

Ok, seriously...about Kidney....what if...what if Kidney hears that just after breaking up with him she has a date with a local Jew. What if he has biases...he does seem to indicate that he feels he knows who was behind this and if he could stake out several locations where he thinks they should be looking, and with "several" men (police) he would find him...did he mean other clubs in the area? Was he insinuating he thought a "Jew" who frequents a club like the Berner St one was responsible? Is that a sign of prejudice if so, or misdirection using his own bias?

You tell me. You are the resident expert on theorists who blame the Jews for everything.

[Fiver]

Yes, and you are forgetting the main cause of deaths by the use of as knife was throat cutting in Victorian times

As Wikipedia would put it - "citation needed".

[Michael W Richards]

I'm not with you. Don Rumbelow claimed the knife that killed Stride was blunt. He was speaking at a Whitechapel Society meeting and this was one reason he doubted she was killed by the ripper.

I was commenting on the use of "blunt"...no biggie.


You tell me. You are the resident expert on theorists who blame the Jews for everything.

I should put an end to this accusing me of anti Jew bias all the time. I have none, never have, never have given anyone reason...before now...to even say it. The Blame you speak of was assigned by the author of the GSG....it suggested that Jews have avoided blame in the past, or that Jews in fact should be blamed for something. Since a murder took place that night on property occupied solely by Jews, and the same Jews ran out for help suggesting that "another" murder has occurred...(before a second one had that night), then alluding to previous unsolved murders, most probably "ripper" associated.....the proximity of the apron section and the amount of time that elapsed between the murder and its placement suggest that both may have been left there at the same time, which would mean that the author was the killer in Mitre Square.

Is he suggesting that he didnt kill Stride by that message?

[Fiver]

The facts are that Berner street was empty and deserted from 12:35 until 12:55 by all the witnesses that had access to see it during that time, only the anarchists inside the club, or in the passageway were there, and that Liz Stride is cut by someone whose sole intention was to cut her throat.

None of those are facts.

None of the winesses claimed that "that Berner street was empty and deserted from 12:35 until 12:55". According to the Evening News "...shortly before a quarter to one o’clock she [Mrs Mortimer] heard the measured heavy stamp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street door with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. 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.' She also said "‘...a young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound: and "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."

That man was Leon Goldstein,who admitted he was present. Morris Eagle claimed to be present during that time, but when asked if he had seen "anyone about in Berner-street" replied "I dare say I did, but I do not remember them," Israel Schwartz claimed that he and 2 other men were present during that time, with one of them assaulting Elizabeth Stride. Isaac Kozebrodski claimed "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard", that Kozebrodski saw Stride's body and then went to find a policeman, which would have put him on the street well before 12:55.

It is not true that "only the anarchists inside the club, or in the passageway were there". As noted at the inquest "On the left side of the yard is a house, which is divided into three tenements, and occupied, I believe, by that number of families. At the end is a store or workshop belonging to Messrs. Hindley and Co., sack manufacturers."

Your statement that "Liz Stride is cut by someone whose sole intention was to cut her throat." is an opinion, not a fact. If her killer was the Ripper, he was interrupted before he could get to his goal of mutilation. If the killer was a would-be robber, he might have taken any money Stride had, or searched her and found none, or been interrupted before he could complete the search. If her killer was a would-be rapist, he could have killed her in frustration that the location was too heavily trafficked for him to get away with a rape. If her killer's goal was to kill Stride, he might simply done that and walked away. Or he might have planned to disguise his killing as the work of the Ripper, but been scared off before he could finish the job.

[Scott Nelson]

I'm trying to recall the knife bluntness question here; was Rumbelow saying the knife owned by Dorothy Stroud was blunt when he saw it and was (therefore) blunt when it was (possibly) used on Stride? Or was Rumbelow recalling the testimony about the Coram knife?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since they split up earlier that week, and since it would appear by all the physical description that Stride may well have been there to meet someone else...someone she thought perhaps she might end up staying with that night, and since she is only cut once to inflict mortal injury, jealousy may well be a motivator.

Speculation of course.

2 things..she is there either to clean that club after a large meeting, perhaps being referred by one of the Jews she regularly cleaned for, or she is there to meet someone.

The stating of opinion as fact....again.

Secondly, people should stop using Schwartz's story to introduce someone else at that scene at that time. He is not part of any formal public hearing of the investigation into how she dies.

But he made a statement to the police for which we have evidence that the police took seriously because they acted upon it.

Nor is a Pipeman, or a BSM. You only have what you have at that site...which is Liz Stride and about 30 jews hanging around after a meeting.

You dismiss the inconvenient......again.

Her killer came from those people, and since suicide wasnt considered, you have your suspect pool right there.

Faulty logic. The killer could have come from elsewhere. You are stating your own opinion as a fact......again.

The pomposity of posters like Herlock leads one to mistakenly believe that a discarded statement is actually a pivgotal factoid in this case, and evidence that is absent in any way, shape or form indicates why a Ripper is the most likely suspect. He posts criticisms of other theoretical extrapolation of known accepted facts while using ones we already know are not valid. Its mind boggling logic, but its shared by some other posters too.

I don’t stoop to inventing statements to make case. The only thing mind-boggling is your complete ignorance of what constitutes a ‘fact.’ Your absence of evidence nonsense is still being trawled up I see. Check the poll. Not a single person agrees with you.

The facts are that Berner street was empty and deserted from 12:35 until 12:55 by all the witnesses that had access to see it during that time, only the anarchists inside the club, or in the passageway were there, and that Liz Stride is cut by someone whose sole intention was to cut her throat.

‘Not seen’ doesn't equate to ‘couldn’t have happened.’

The suggestions that anything else is the actually the case are provably false.

The above statement definitely is provably false.

If people would focus on what actually IS vs what they believe, then we might progress.

Try it.

If they want to believe in evidence that isnt believable, thata choice, but hardly a platform to legitimately counter any proposed scenarios.

What’s certainly not believable is that Stride’s body was discovered earlier. That has been disproven as a fantasy.

ps...thanks rj for pointing out the obvious when someone make a fuss about a post I made. bruises......

If you want an example of pomposity I’d suggest a man who invents statements, who uses selective quoting, who ignores the inconvenient and the obvious and who interprets evidence only in a way that suits a totally discredited and disbelieved theory. A man who, no matter how often he’s been shown to have been wrong, still tries to stubbornly shoehorn his theory into place despite the fact that not a single Ripperologist on the entire planet agrees with him. That’s pomposity.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have indeed considered this, Trev, but I don't see any compelling evidence against Kidney. Nor did the police, and I do very occasionally trust their judgement.

In the heat of what moment? Were they having a shouting match? A one-off killer, suddenly losing his temper with Stride and not thinking about the consequences, nevertheless manages to inflict a single fatal wound like a pro, with cool, quiet efficiency, then slips away into the night, confident he has silenced her for good? It just doesn't seem all that likely to me, but then I've never been in that position myself.

Love,

Caz
X

You should know by now that in Ripperology all things are possible

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Using that idea to discount Fanny isnt viable cd....in effect Fanny saw nothing on that at street in front of the gates between 12:35 and 12:55,

Unless you read the EN of course where she said that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed, and for 10 minutes. She said that it was 12.45 but Smith himself said between 12.30-12.35. It’s convenient for you to dismiss this of course and to dismiss Smith, but if Smith was correct the Fanny was on her doorstep between say 12.31 and 12.36. Then we do a bit of maths and add the 10 minutes before she went back inside and this means that she could have gone back inside well before Schwartz passed so she can’t be used to dismiss him. But that won’t bother you of course.

during which time a murderer cuts Liz Strides throat in the passageway unseen from the view she had. Seeing no-one and no activity is already on the books with Wess, Lave and Eagle. They wouldnt need another "nothing" witness. However, Israel Schwartz claims to see someone no-one else sees alive after 12:35, being assaulted on that same empty and deserted street by one other man, with another watching...all around 12:45. The earliest cut time is from 12:30...as per Phillips estimate (an hour before he arrived at 1:30)...to 12:46,(20 minutes to 1/2 hour before he arrived at 1:16) as per Blackwells. It is highly likely she is cut between those times.

As ever you use a very ‘convenient’ piece of thinking here. Schwartz passes after Mortimer has gone back inside and after Eagle has returned.

There are 3 people that could see what happened on that street from 12:35 until 12:55, and none of them saw anyone or anything. Ergo...the person who killed her was someone out of sight by the street view witnesses, and someone with access to Liz in the passageway. That can only be attendees still at the club

Beware of the stampede of people rushing to agree with you there Michael.

.

Take off your ‘Theory Goggles,’ accept that we can’t childishly hold every witness to exact to-the-minute timing, assess your 4 witnesses fairly (as if) and you will see what everyone else in the world sees......that Stride was killed just before 1.00 and that she was discovered at 1.00 by Diemschutz. Your just making yourself look silly Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

Take off your ‘Theory Goggles,’ accept that we can’t childishly hold every witness to exact to-the-minute timing, assess your 4 witnesses fairly (as if) and you will see what everyone else in the world sees......that Stride was killed just before 1.00 and that she was discovered at 1.00 by Diemschutz. Your just making yourself look silly Michael.

Will you please grow a pair and offer actual rebuttal instead of the childish avatar scolding.

The only way you can rebutt the 4 corroborative witness who all agree is to accept witnesses that have ZERO corroboration. Why you dont see a problem with that isnt something I cant continue to try and help you with. You get the point or you dont. For example, what Israel claimed means that 4 people interacting on the street in front of the club at 12:45 were seen and heard by no-one. A deserted street 5 minutes before, and for 10 minutes after that time suddenly becomes populated by people we have no idea how they got there. Liz is not seen on the street after 12:35 by anyone...except apparently Israel. There are no other people seen on the street after 12:35 until 12:55..except apparently Israel sees 2 more, plus Liz...making it 4 people suddenly there. Again, That no-one sees or hears. No wonder he isnt believed ultimately.

Louis says he arrived at 1...Fanny is PROVABLY at her door at approx that same time and has seen nothing of any cart and horse approaching. In fact she doesnt even hear one until after 1am when she has been inside and getting ready for bed. AFTER 1am. As per the constable who met Eagle, he is in that passageway at 1:05-06. Which suggests that Eagle must have gone out 10-15 minutes prior to that time, which puts his knowledge of the dying woman at no later than 12:50. Well before Louis says he "discovered" the woman. And that time interestingly fits with 4 witnesses who said they were by the dying woman at 12:40-12:45...and shortly thereafter sent out Issac K by himself. He meets Eagle later as he returns to the club. Funny how that all fits with the times given by the majority of the witnesses. And funny that, if true, it means that Louis and Eagle either lied or were mistaken by 15 minutes at least. Gee...2 men paid by the club which was open at the time, and who wouldnt be paid if it became closed for investigation. Funny how the police not only searched all the men still there but also the club itself, which suggests they entertained an idea that this murder looked to have been committed by someone already there. Not someone appearing and disappearing in smoke.

Ive said it before...believe whatever you want, I dont care about convincing you. Im pointing out that the evidence suggests certain things and you obviously dont get them. Im fine with that. Other people will get it however,and hopefully I can discuss that with some of them instead of having to deal with infantile pouts by you.

[Michael W Richards]

None of those are facts.

None of the winesses claimed that "that Berner street was empty and deserted from 12:35 until 12:55". According to the Evening News "a

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.

You should actually read the materials about this case, its interesting. And then I wouldnt have to post the obvious in response to questions that can be easily answered by reading about the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Will you please grow a pair and offer actual rebuttal instead of the childish avatar scolding.

Every single one of your points has been repeatedly rebutted. Why don’t you ‘grow a pair’ and answer the question that you’ve refused point blank to answer? Why do you persist in dishonestly citing Gilleman as proof of an earlier TOD death when he’s only ever mentioned by Eagle for telling him about the body in the yard at 1.00? Any chance of admitting that you’ve stopped to making things up? How about a show of integrity Michael?

The only way you can rebutt the 4 corroborative witness who all agree

More dishonesty. You do not have 4 witnesses that corroborate your fantasy. They have been dismissed using a reasoned assessment. This is one of the reasons why no one believes you.

is to accept witnesses that have ZERO corroboration.

Spooner saw Lamb arrive. We know that Lamb arrived after 1.00. Therefore Spooner arrived at just after 1.00. To deny this is a wilful manipulation of the known facts. Par for the course with you.

Why you dont see a problem with that isnt something I cant continue to try and help you with.

Please look around you Michael for Christ’s sake! You’ve been hawking this theory for 20 years and not a single Ripperologist puts an ounce of weight behind it. Why can’t YOU get the message? Why can’t YOU see the problem? The problem is that you are so tied into this theory that you are too embarrassed to admit it. Please stop talking to others as if they are the lunatic fringe. The ‘fringe’ is YOU. If we return in 10 or 20 there will still be no one that agrees with your theory.

You get the point or you dont. For example, what Israel claimed means that 4 people interacting on the street in front of the club at 12:45 were seen and heard by no-one.

Yes and they weren’t performing Handel’s Messiah or rehearsing King Lear. It was an incident which probably took no longer than 20 seconds from start to finish. So to claim that it was somehow ‘unbelievable’ that no one saw this at 12.45 in the morning is not only ‘unbelievable’ it’s bizarre. More than that though it shows how desperate you are that you have to resort to such nonsense especially when we consider all of the other things in your theory that were seen by no one. Like Diemschutz returning at 12.35 with his cart going along Berner Street for example. Or Spooner arriving at the yard at 12.35.

A deserted street 5 minutes before, and for 10 minutes after that time suddenly becomes populated by people we have no idea how they got there. Liz is not seen on the street after 12:35 by anyone...except apparently Israel. There are no other people seen on the street after 12:35 until 12:55..except apparently Israel sees 2 more, plus Liz...making it 4 people suddenly there. Again, That no-one sees or hears. No wonder he isnt believed ultimately.

But it was believed. The police acted on his evidence. I know that you have an aversion to inconvenient facts Michael but they are facts nonetheless.

Louis says he arrived at 1...

Fanny is PROVABLY at her door at approx that same time and has seen nothing of any cart and horse approaching.

There’s nothing provable about it. We only have her word for it. And before you quote her seeing Goldstein at 12.55 I’d remind you that nowhere does Goldstein himself state the time that he passed. So 12.55 is Fanny’s time and not his.

In fact she doesnt even hear one until after 1am when she has been inside and getting ready for bed. AFTER 1am.

After she’d heard a horse and cart which you apparently believe was either another horse and cart or someone making a horse and cart-like noise. According to what she told the EN (remember that one Michael?) she came onto her doorstep just after 12.45 for 10 minutes. It appears that she was mistaken though because Smith said that he passed at 12.30-12.35 (I tend to favour a PC on his beat over a lounging housewife) So this means that she was on her doorstep from just before 12.35 until just before 12.45. Therefore she misses Schwartz. She comes back out after hearing the commotion at the yard.

If only you didn’t adhere to the belief that everyone had watches and clocks Michael then you would have less difficulty with timings.


As per the constable who met Eagle, he is in that passageway at 1:05-06. Which suggests that Eagle must have gone out 10-15 minutes prior to that time, which puts his knowledge of the dying woman at no later than 12:50.

What are you talking about?

Well before Louis says he "discovered" the woman. And that time interestingly fits with 4 witnesses who said they were by the dying woman at 12:40-12:45..

Are you including Gilleman still?

.and shortly thereafter sent out Issac K by himself. He meets Eagle later as he returns to the club. Funny how that all fits with the times given by the majority of the witnesses.

And funny that, if true, it means that Louis and Eagle either lied or were mistaken by 15 minutes at least. Gee...2 men paid by the club which was open at the time, and who wouldnt be paid if it became closed for investigation. Funny how the police not only searched all the men still there but also the club itself, which suggests they entertained an idea that this murder looked to have been committed by someone already there. Not someone appearing and disappearing in smoke.

If you want to base your delusion on mistaken witnesses who were guessing times then it’s up to you Michael. Desperation means that you need to grasp at any straw.

Ive said it before...believe whatever you want, I dont care about convincing you.

Convincing just one other living human being would be a start Michael. But you haven’t.....in 20 years.

Im pointing out that the evidence suggests certain things and you obviously dont get them. Im fine with that. Other people will get it however,and hopefully I can discuss that with some of them instead of having to deal with infantile pouts by you.

Again, if these ‘people’ haven’t come to agree with this after 20 years of looking into this they’re hardly likely to are they? Give it up Michael. A child could see that you’re wrong.