The Absence Of Evidence

[c.d.]

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.

[Losmandris]

Cheers Losmandris.

The killer would be interpreting Stride's reactions and behaviour towards him, just as she would be doing the same with his. He only had to suspect that this one was trouble, and he had the means to put a swift end to the possibility.

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. How much might Stride have been able to tell the police had he let her live? Was he in her company earlier that evening? Had they chatted or had a drink together? Was there anything distinctive about his speech, behaviour or mannerisms? Was he polite at first, before becoming pushy? Did he come bearing gifts? Did he have a memorable chat-up line? Was there a point when his manner changed abruptly because of something she said or did? Even if he was the man Schwartz and Pipeman saw, they could have told the police nothing about any of these aspects of his character. They saw a brief snapshot of the woman being shoved by a man, who may or may not have been the killer. So we just don't know how important it was to him to make sure she would not live to tell the tale.

Love,

Caz
X

I totally agree. This theory certainly holds water for me.

[Losmandris]

How much "curriculum" kill training do you think there was prior to the 20th century? Yet, every major battle in the last thousand years will have victims of throat cutting. The impression they read instructions in "how to be an army soldier" handbook is somewhat silly. People were trained by people, before textbooks became all the rage.

A quick look at the knives used in battle during the American Civil War will give you a clue that many were not using their knives to cut wood.

"....A private in the white 29th Iowa Infantry, whose regiment supported the 2nd Kansas, wrote his family: "One of our boys seen a little n*gro pounding a wounded reb in the head with the but of his gun and asked him what he was doing. the n*gro replied he is not dead yet!" During a subsequent lull in the fighting, details from the 2nd Kansas ranged the field, cutting the throats of Confederate wounded. "We found that many of our wounded had been mutilated in many ways," reported the surgeon of the 33rd Arkansas Infantry. "Some with ears cut off, throats cut, knife stabs, etc. My brother . . . had his throat cut through the windpipe and lived several days."

Point stands. I don't imagine that they were 'trained' in how to cuts throats. They may have just done it anyway when the occasion arose but not specifically instructed on how to do it.

[erobitha]

The statement Michael Richards quotes was not made by Blackwell. It was made by Bagster Phillips.

The inquest transcript can be a little confusing I guess for all of us. Doesn’t detract from the fact a theory is just a theory.

[rjpalmer]

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.

The statement Michael Richards quotes was not made by Blackwell. It was made by Bagster Phillips.

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[erobitha]

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

Ha ha

[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]

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.