Stride..a victim?

[Michael W Richards]

Enough of the niceties, Maybe you are a crazy old dame...

You want Louis to arrive with his pony and cart at 12.40, without Fanny hearing a thing, and then you want her to hear 'the bootsteps of a few men' around 1am and mistake this for Louis arriving with his pony and cart.

I believe Louis arrived at least 20 minutes before he said he did. Im not married to any specific arrival time. I just know it wasnt 1.

It's nuts, Michael. Did Fanny not know what a pony and cart sounded like? Or did Louis tell everyone to make their bootsteps sound just like his pony and cart, to confuse that stupid woman, Mrs Mortimer, who was bound to be listening behind her twitching curtains?

Fanny heard a cart and horse after 1, but Louis was already in the passageway according to the most corroborative witnesses for this event, before going for help, call me nuts with the rest of your bs doesnt change anything. She heard a cart and horse....THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WAS LOUIS.

None of it makes sense, logically or tangibly.

No, Not if you want to see something else.

You seem to have a problem coping with women from that era, seeing them as Saturday night thug fodder for knife wielding criminals, or hop-picking blackmailers, or else dribbling idiots, who wouldn't know a bootstep from a pony's clippety-clop.

Thats just your bizarre imagination again, I said no such thing. YOU did. Ive said in every occassion she heard a cart and horse, she thought it was Louis after hearing his story, and she saw NO-ONE at that time.

You rule out Fanny hearing a pony cart just when Louis said he arrived, ..

I dont rule it out, the only eyewitness there does.

...because this doesn't fit with your entrenched beliefs about crooked Jews covering their arses, immediately after discovering yet another murder of a defenceless female - the fourth since early the previous month.

Surely the obvious isnt that obscure for you. Liz Stride is killed....end of conversation. Not ripped, not mutilated, no skirts pushed up...nada. The truth is that you make these bizarre suggestions of what people said based on your own imagination and some bizarre belief you can address your inconsistencies with serial killer data. Like your interruption idea...NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE...yet you buy into into anyway. Im relieved your not a cop.

You can't allow for even the slightest possibility that this was the same man who killed Nichols and Chapman - not because an interruption can safely be ruled out when you 'just follow the evidence' [it simply can't]; not because Stride was also murdered by a knife wielding maniac,

Who says her killer is a knife weilding maniac? Oh yeah, YOU DO. He was a killer, thats all.Thats all he did. You suggest he was a maniac because youve made up your mind that This HAD TO BE the 'maniac". No lack of evidence as proof of that will ever make you believe this wasnt Jack.. A Fictional character.

You been insulting since the first exchanges with you, youve ignored evidence in favour of what I can only assume are hunches, and you consistently suggest all the Canonicals were in some sort of same boat, which the circumstantial evidence alone addresses and proves false. Let alone the far more revealing LACK OF MUTILATION in the case of Stride.

Have your opinion?, no problem, dont want to base it on actual evidence?..your choice. But your obvious lack of decorum, your consistent lies about what people had posted, and your wacko belief that absence of evidence is really evidence is astonishing.

Maybe head back to the diary thread, its more your speed.

[caz]

Im wondering whether the so called cart and horse Fanny thought she heard a few minutes after going to bed was actually the bootsteps of a few men. Maybe Johnson and the constable?

Sounds can be easily misinterpreted.

I dont have any agenda.

It has to be useful, it has to be secondhand verified and it has to make sense logically and tangibly. Im not trying to find something in the evidence and ruling out what doesnt fit with that. Im not forced to suggest actions that have no foundation or support, just because they make things fit better for my preconceptions.

Just follow the evidence...

Don't make me laugh.

You want Louis to arrive with his pony and cart at 12.40, without Fanny hearing a thing, and then you want her to hear 'the bootsteps of a few men' around 1am and mistake this for Louis arriving with his pony and cart. It's nuts, Michael. Did Fanny not know what a pony and cart sounded like? Or did Louis tell everyone to make their bootsteps sound just like his pony and cart, to confuse that stupid woman, Mrs Mortimer, who was bound to be listening behind her twitching curtains?

None of it makes sense, logically or tangibly. You seem to have a problem coping with women from that era, seeing them as Saturday night thug fodder for knife wielding criminals, or hop-picking blackmailers, or else dribbling idiots, who wouldn't know a bootstep from a pony's clippety-clop.

You rule out Fanny hearing a pony cart just when Louis said he arrived, because this doesn't fit with your entrenched beliefs about crooked Jews covering their arses, immediately after discovering yet another murder of a defenceless female - the fourth since early the previous month.

You can't allow for even the slightest possibility that this was the same man who killed Nichols and Chapman - not because an interruption can safely be ruled out when you 'just follow the evidence' [it simply can't]; not because Stride was also murdered by a knife wielding maniac, who clearly had a problem with defenceless females, but would never have left one dead but unmutilated [not remotely logical, and no amount of evidence could ever prove it]; but because your agenda involves a suspect who was taken out of the game after the Hanbury Street murder. As such, you have no choice but to attribute each of the later murders to different hands, for different motives, and to argue against what has been recognised by the vast majority since 1888 as classic serial killer behaviour, with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. The mere mention of valid comparisons with other series is enough to send you off on one, lashing out at anyone who interprets the murders in a different way from yourself, using precisely the same information. I can only interpret your anger, and disrespect for other people's interpretations, as a reaction to having papered yourself into a corner over your supposed killer of Nichols and Chapman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a low tolerance for reading tripe posing as fact Caz, but thanks for the concern.

Pot - Kettle - Black

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, lets start at the beginning....she said she was at her door from 12:50 until just after 1, not 12:58 as you said,

In which version? Because in the Evening News, more detailed version, she said just after 12.45 for around 10 minutes )(which contradicts PC Smith)

Israel coming by would have been noticed dont you think by the men gathered inside the passageway with Louis at 12:40-45,

No. Because they weren’t there at 12.45. Diemschutz arrived back at around 1.00. This is beyond all reasonable doubt.

what Fanny guesses isnt important to me...who owned the boots, whose cart and horse she heard,... what she does bring to the table is an eyewitness who had a direct view to that entrance "nearly" the whole time from 12:30 to just after 1.

Ditto EN report which I will continue to quote despite conscious efforts to ignore it.

Validated by Browns sighting of the same young couple she saw and Goldsteins statement.

Goldstein who gave no time for his passing (as Fanny didnt.)

I dont think youre a crazy old bat, nor do I think Herlock is a dottering old fool.

I wonder why people think that 55 is old ?

I think both of you however have ingrained beliefs about this murder that prevent you from accepting the majority of the witness statements that say Louis was there at 12:45, that other members were with him, and that they were standing around a fallen Liz Stride.

Can we just note who is the one with the theory here Michael....just for the record.

Your witnesses largely employing guesswork can easily be explained in terms of error. Spooner for example, shouldn’t be mentioned to prop up earlier times. Your 4 witnesses amount to absolutely nothing. They were very obviously mistaken.

Also taking Louis and his Isaac[s] remark as being Issac Kozebrodksi is patently untrue based on Issacs statement. Maybe Louis did mean an Issacs, but he could not have gone with Issac K after 1 because Issac K was returning around then, after meeting Eagle while coming back. By Issac K's own statement.

They were one and the same.

Notice that Eagle doesnt mention meeting Issac K on the way back, he also doesnt see Lave standing there at 12:40..or the other men that say they were there then, and he "couldnt be sure" that Liz wasnt there already. Another one of your trusted sources.

Its you who have built a fanciful theory on the quicksand of human error.

You wouldnt get some animosity from me if you would stop pretending some evidence can just be tossed because it doesnt support your Ripper Interruptus idea.

This is exactly what you are doing Michael. You have created a scenario from very natural witness errors. From people who had absolutely no reason for paying particular attention to the time. From people who mostly wouldn’t have owned a watch or a clock. All of the four witnesses that you rely on can very, very simply be explained without any leaps of faith and yet you exaggerate there importance just because there are four of them. These type of witness discrepancies pervade the case.

There’s a very natural desire to come up with something ‘new’ in this case. To be the one that sees something that everyone else has missed and in my opinion this colours the judgment of yourself and NBFN. That neither of you can accept that 4 witnesses, all of whom who were unlikely in the extreme to have owned watches and none of whom had any reason at all to ensure to log the exact time, could have been mistaken points heavily at this conclusion.

That the club members, over a very short space of time, decided they needed a plan for an alternative story about the murder and then came up with one, is fanciful at best. That Schwartz was a part of it cannot be sustained especially considering that a not very intelligent toddler could have vastly improved on it. You constantly ask about ‘evidence for interruption’ which can be described in no other way that a dishonest question as we know that no evidence could be expected to have been present. This is desperate stuff and to be honest I’m tired of listening to it.

Fanciful conspiracy theorists thinking is the curse of any case. Look for a conspiracy and you’ll find one. Given time you could just about build a case against anyone in this case but we don’t because we look for more than just understandable witness error.

There was no cover up here. It’s obvious that there wasn’t. Boring as you and NBFN might find it but Diemschutz got back at 1.00ish. No doubt. Stride was killed just before. Very probably by the ripper who was disturbed before he could mutilate.

Ill change my mind if either of you can show me some solid evidence. I suspect that you won’t. Because there isn’t any.

[Michael W Richards]

Just so the mistaken beliefs are perpetuated, conspiracies do exist, particularly when adverse consequences based on perceptions are on the table. Running in fear from a suggestion that club staff members phrased their comments based upon a fear of losing income or worse, being suspects in a murder case is very understandable to the average sentient person, most Ripperologists however dont fall into that category.

Only the Boogyman will do.

[Michael W Richards]

Nothing compared to a bleedin' horse and cart turning up - which Fanny didn't see or hear during her half hour vigil, but heard clearly enough later, when she had locked up and gone to bed with a nightcap and 'Walter's Secret Life'.

I think our Michael may be suffering from selective hearing, don't you?

Love,

Caz
X

Just a low tolerance for reading tripe posing as fact Caz, but thanks for the concern.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What about the fact that two of the three papers which carried the story reported that Koz came into the club at six thirty, not twelve thirty?

Daily News 1 Oct
"I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening."

Evening News
"I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock."

Irish Times
"I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since."

Those are errors of reporting. Other ‘errors’ are actually truths on which we can base theories.

You know how it works Joshua.

[Michael W Richards]

Fanny is talking about the pony cart she heard at or just after 1am. She heard no other. If we allow her to have been at her front door between, say, 12.48 and 12.58, thus seeing Goldstein pass by just before locking up, but knowing nothing about the incident described by Schwartz [because she had popped back in for a while after hearing PC Smith's tread around 12.35], her account makes sense. She saw no man coming out of the yard before 1am, during the entire ten minutes she was at her door, and nothing unusual or suspicious at all. So that's why she believed the murderer must have been interrupted by the pony cart she heard, and managed to escape [unnoticed by the still canoodling young couple Fanny had watched earlier - nosey so-and-so] while Louis went into the club for assistance and the alarm was raised.

But how can you trust Fanny if even she reckoned the killer was interrupted? She was also deaf as a post at 12.40, if that's when Louis actually arrived, but had her hearing aid in when the sound of your phantom horse and cart caught her attention later. Presumably her old man wasn't a snorer, or she'd have had ear plugs in instead, and missed the main event.

I'm surprised you haven't dismissed Fanny as a crazy mixed up old bat - as you dismiss me.

Well, lets start at the beginning....she said she was at her door from 12:50 until just after 1, not 12:58 as you said, Israel coming by would have been noticed dont you think by the men gathered inside the passageway with Louis at 12:40-45, what Fanny guesses isnt important to me...who owned the boots, whose cart and horse she heard,... what she does bring to the table is an eyewitness who had a direct view to that entrance "nearly" the whole time from 12:30 to just after 1. Validated by Browns sighting of the same young couple she saw and Goldsteins statement.

I dont think youre a crazy old bat, nor do I think Herlock is a dottering old fool. I think both of you however have ingrained beliefs about this murder that prevent you from accepting the majority of the witness statements that say Louis was there at 12:45, that other members were with him, and that they were standing around a fallen Liz Stride. Also taking Louis and his Isaac[s] remark as being Issac Kozebrodksi is patently untrue based on Issacs statement. Maybe Louis did mean an Issacs, but he could not have gone with Issac K after 1 because Issac K was returning around then, after meeting Eagle while coming back. By Issac K's own statement.

Notice that Eagle doesnt mention meeting Issac K on the way back, he also doesnt see Lave standing there at 12:40..or the other men that say they were there then, and he "couldnt be sure" that Liz wasnt there already. Another one of your trusted sources.

You wouldnt get some animosity from me if you would stop pretending some evidence can just be tossed because it doesnt support your Ripper Interruptus idea.

[caz]

"I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. "

Evening News, October 1st.

How much time do you think had elapsed between that contentious half hour and the time of that interview. How much time elapses before we even hear of Israels Story. This had to be fresh in her mind when she made the remarks.

Another snippet from that interview.."I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart.If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him."

And..."A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."

Fanny spoke with the young couple after the fact, who also, saw nothing out of the ordinary on a semi deserted street.

Fanny is talking about the pony cart she heard at or just after 1am. She heard no other. If we allow her to have been at her front door between, say, 12.48 and 12.58, thus seeing Goldstein pass by just before locking up, but knowing nothing about the incident described by Schwartz [because she had popped back in for a while after hearing PC Smith's tread around 12.35], her account makes sense. She saw no man coming out of the yard before 1am, during the entire ten minutes she was at her door, and nothing unusual or suspicious at all. So that's why she believed the murderer must have been interrupted by the pony cart she heard, and managed to escape [unnoticed by the still canoodling young couple Fanny had watched earlier - nosey so-and-so] while Louis went into the club for assistance and the alarm was raised.

But how can you trust Fanny if even she reckoned the killer was interrupted? She was also deaf as a post at 12.40, if that's when Louis actually arrived, but had her hearing aid in when the sound of your phantom horse and cart caught her attention later. Presumably her old man wasn't a snorer, or she'd have had ear plugs in instead, and missed the main event.

I'm surprised you haven't dismissed Fanny as a crazy mixed up old bat - as you dismiss me.

[Joshua Rogan]

Again, everyone is wrong and the man who provably lied is right...I suppose so is the theatrical friend of Wess's. By the by, Issac arrived back at the club at 12:30 and said about 10 minutes later he was called out to the yard...took him over 20 minutes to get there huh?

What about the fact that two of the three papers which carried the story reported that Koz came into the club at six thirty, not twelve thirty?

Daily News 1 Oct
"I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening."

Evening News
"I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock."

Irish Times
"I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who do you take me for, Herlock, Coco the Clown?

Your the last person I’d call a clown Caz

[Michael W Richards]

Of course, if they did all glance up at a clock in the club, they'd have seen it showing the same time - and that clock could have been slow.

Nah, never happens, does it? Not where people are having a good time and don't want the evening to end.

Love,

Caz
X

Again, everyone is wrong and the man who provably lied is right...I suppose so is the theatrical friend of Wess's. By the by, Issac arrived back at the club at 12:30 and said about 10 minutes later he was called out to the yard...took him over 20 minutes to get there huh?

I see that one member is publishing his "theory" about these crimes as non-fiction, which essentially means a fictional story woven around some facts. I think the premise is hysterical myself, but at least he is using some facts to support his tale of one killer.

You toss them aside as inconvenient for your own beliefs. Pushing choices youve made, not concerned about being accurate, is your goal I guess.

[caz]

I'll go there again Michael and I'll keep going there because I'm afraid that you keep ignoring this possibility. Fanny gave a more detailed explanation of what she did on that night so why do you only repeat the 'nearly whole time' one?

Anyway, the whole Schwartz, BS Man, Pipeman incident might have taken little more than 30 seconds and it was hardly a marching band going past.

Nothing compared to a bleedin' horse and cart turning up - which Fanny didn't see or hear during her half hour vigil, but heard clearly enough later, when she had locked up and gone to bed with a nightcap and 'Walter's Secret Life'.

I think our Michael may be suffering from selective hearing, don't you?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He did Caz. I mentioned it in an earlier post and I think that it was suggested that this may have been an error. Maybe Joshua or Wickerman I'm not sure who.

And of course we have Lamb saying that he'd seen the two running men at around 1.00.

So we have 2 police officers both saying just after 1.00. Who do we believe to be more reliable on timings? Police Officers on regulated beats who have every reason to be time aware. Or blokes in a club (probably after a few drinks) who when hearing about a woman lying in the yard have absolutely no reason to log the time and so rely on guesswork when thinking back?

Not really the most difficult of questions is it? Some prefer the 'bloke in the pub' opinion though.

Of course, if they did all glance up at a clock in the club, they'd have seen it showing the same time - and that clock could have been slow.

Nah, never happens, does it? Not where people are having a good time and don't want the evening to end.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You win Caz. I’m just hoping that you take size 11 too?

Who do you take me for, Herlock, Coco the Clown?