Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Fanny also 'just happens to miss' seeing or hearing a horse and cart entering via the gates around 12.40.

    Convenient, isn't it? She managed to hear a horse and cart just after one, when she had locked up and retired for the night, and that's when she went back out and found the commotion going on. But she went temporarily deaf for Louis's arrival twenty minutes earlier, when she just happened to pop inside for a minute or two, during the half hour she spent at her front door "nearly the whole time"?

    Yet you have her back on sentry duty, by 12.45, seeing and hearing nothing of the incident described by Schwartz.

    So you need two horses and two carts, plus two young men known as Isaac or Isaacs, which are not supported by the evidence, in order to support this whacky conspiracy theory.

    Reminds me of the Blackadder episode, but t'other way round. A magical horse with eight legs and two heads turns out to be two horses, seen close together.

    The murderer fleeing unseen, just like in every other case, means that nobody was there to see the murder itself, or the few seconds before or after Stride's killer slit her throat, but the coast was never going to be clear for long, whether Louis returned at 12.40 or 1, was it? Therefore we cannot possibly know whether the killer had unfinished business or not.
    I dont know whats so hard to grasp. She said she was at her door nearly the whole time, but from 12:50 until 1 she was there. So, yeah, she might not have been at her door at 12:40 or 12:45. Thats 25 minutes of that half hour she could have stood there and still be there "nearly the whole time".

    You mocking me is rich...youd have unsubstantiated sources being correct, multiple corroborating stories as lies or errors, you have Ripper who doesnt rip, and you have an interruption that is in no way representative of any of the physical evidence. If fiction is what you want why post on boards that are attempting to deal with facts?

    As for the Issacs issue, by all means believe Diemshitz not Issac himself in his own words. Your choice. But dont critique those that call a spade a spade. Fantasy has been far too long a part of this study. Just remember that its a proven fact that Louis did not arrive when he said he did.

    Hell, people believe that Trump is of sound mind too.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    So, if Louis isnt lying then the killer flees after 1am? We dont see Liz from 12:35 on, so where is she and what is she doing? Since Liz may have been cut as early as 12:45-46, why is her killer fleeing after 1am, and why isnt she mutilated? Or even moved since her throat cut? Whats he doing standing there for perhaps 15minutes?

    Ill make this easy, Louis arrives around 12:40, Lave is there at the gates, Louis calls for help upstairs, 3 members come down, 1 is Issac K, Louis or someone sends him out for help, 2 other Jews go out for help and meet Spooner on the way back. Eagle arrives back at the club. Eagle leaves for help after 1, so does Louis with someone who likely has a surname of Issacs.

    You dont need imagined interruptions or timings that explain why Fanny, who is at her door "nearly the whole time" from 12:30 until 1, just happens to miss seeing 3 men on the street and 1 assaulting Liz or anyone else leaving via the gates.
    Fanny also 'just happens to miss' seeing or hearing a horse and cart entering via the gates around 12.40.

    Convenient, isn't it? She managed to hear a horse and cart just after one, when she had locked up and retired for the night, and that's when she went back out and found the commotion going on. But she went temporarily deaf for Louis's arrival twenty minutes earlier, when she just happened to pop inside for a minute or two, during the half hour she spent at her front door "nearly the whole time"?

    Yet you have her back on sentry duty, by 12.45, seeing and hearing nothing of the incident described by Schwartz.

    So you need two horses and two carts, plus two young men known as Isaac or Isaacs, which are not supported by the evidence, in order to support this whacky conspiracy theory.

    Reminds me of the Blackadder episode, but t'other way round. A magical horse with eight legs and two heads turns out to be two horses, seen close together.

    The murderer fleeing unseen, just like in every other case, means that nobody was there to see the murder itself, or the few seconds before or after Stride's killer slit her throat, but the coast was never going to be clear for long, whether Louis returned at 12.40 or 1, was it? Therefore we cannot possibly know whether the killer had unfinished business or not.
    Last edited by caz; 12-10-2020, 11:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Also, didn't Smith say that he "went" to Berner Street at 1am, not that he arrived there then, or was in Berner Street by then?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    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.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-09-2020, 10:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    1. If Smith passed the clock at just after 1.00, as you've accepted above, and Diemschutz passed it at 1.00 where is the issue?

    2. Despite the fact that routes were regulated what's to say that Smith didn't have to deal with some kind of incident on his route which slightly delayed his return to Berner Street?
    Also, didn't Smith say that he "went" to Berner Street at 1am, not that he arrived there then, or was in Berner Street by then?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    What are you, Herlock, some kind of pervert? In the town where Caz lives, there are few women under 95, even fewer without blue rinses, and their handbags and shoes are invariably hideous.



    The envious look you'd give Caz's shoes before running away?

    But she'd spot that as she swore at you and dusted herself off, so you'd have to kill her and forget about her lovely footwear.

    Then there'd be no evidence, but you'd still have wanted those shoes, even though they wouldn't suit you.

    Do I win 5? Or my handbag back?

    Love,

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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    On the subject of would there have been evidence of interruption....

    I'm a mugger who steals women's handbag's and shoes (I'm not btw) known as the Shoe Thief to the Police. I always target women of Caz's age group and hair colour within the town where Caz lives.
    What are you, Herlock, some kind of pervert? In the town where Caz lives, there are few women under 95, even fewer without blue rinses, and their handbags and shoes are invariably hideous.

    I'm always well covered up so there is precious little to identify me by apart from my height and build which is average.

    One day you are walking down the street and you see someone well covered up and of average height and build attacking Caz. They struggle and he gets Caz's handbag. At that point you shout out "Oi, stop thief!" He stops and runs away.

    If that mugger was actually me (the Shoe Thief) what evidence would there be, after you had interrupted me, that I had intended to steal Caz's shoes?
    The envious look you'd give Caz's shoes before running away?

    But she'd spot that as she swore at you and dusted herself off, so you'd have to kill her and forget about her lovely footwear.

    Then there'd be no evidence, but you'd still have wanted those shoes, even though they wouldn't suit you.

    Do I win 5? Or my handbag back?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    On the subject of would there have been evidence of interruption....

    I'm a mugger who steals women's handbag's and shoes (I'm not btw) known as the Shoe Thief to the Police. I always target women of Caz's age group and hair colour within the town where Caz lives. I'm always well covered up so there is precious little to identify me by apart from my height and build which is average.

    One day you are walking down the street and you see someone well covered up and of average height and build attacking Caz. They struggle and he gets Caz's handbag. At that point you shout out "Oi, stop thief!" He stops and runs away.

    If that mugger was actually me (the Shoe Thief) what evidence would there be, after you had interrupted me, that I had intended to steal Caz's shoes?
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-09-2020, 04:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I’m not going to continue to explain how facile and pointless is this constant “where’s the evidence for interruption” drivel. And it is drivel Michael. I’ll say it again:

    If (notice the ‘if’) the killer was interrupted just after he’d cut her throat what evidence would we expect to see? He cuts the throat, hears the cart (possibly as he’s still cutting?) then he ducks immediately into the shadows. So we have a dead woman with her throat cut. Apart from employing a medium how can we know what the killer had intended (if anything) had he not been interrupted. Unless Diemschutz had found a discarded ‘to do’ list on the ground nearby saying 1. Cut throat. 2. Mutilate then we have no way of knowing. No way at all and everyone can understand this simple fact and yet you still keep saying “where’s the evidence for interruption?” You’re not doing your argument any favours by perusing this invalid point.
    ‘Perusing’ should read ‘pursuing.’

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Ok Herlock, you like citing odds in favor and opposed, so what are the odds that 4 individuals would state that they were all in a place at a specific time..within 5 minutes of each other, and all them were mistaken? I wont even bother with this interruption nonsense, you might as well be suggesting that Liz danced with her killer. There is as much evidence for one as there is the other.
    I’m not going to continue to explain how facile and pointless is this constant “where’s the evidence for interruption” drivel. And it is drivel Michael. I’ll say it again:

    If (notice the ‘if’) the killer was interrupted just after he’d cut her throat what evidence would we expect to see? He cuts the throat, hears the cart (possibly as he’s still cutting?) then he ducks immediately into the shadows. So we have a dead woman with her throat cut. Apart from employing a medium how can we know what the killer had intended (if anything) had he not been interrupted. Unless Diemschutz had found a discarded ‘to do’ list on the ground nearby saying 1. Cut throat. 2. Mutilate then we have no way of knowing. No way at all and everyone can understand this simple fact and yet you still keep saying “where’s the evidence for interruption?” You’re not doing your argument any favours by perusing this invalid point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    A perfect example in your use of the word ‘lied.’ It’s all about conspiracy/cover up. What about ‘error?’ Witnesses can be mistaken.

    No Michael it’s the opposite of an arrogant belief that simply because you’ve come up with a scenario then it must be true. Any balanced observer on the case, even if they were of the belief that Stride wasn’t a victim, would accept the very obvious possibility that the killer was interrupted. They would accept the possibility because it’s as certain as anything can be in this case.
    Ok Herlock, you like citing odds in favor and opposed, so what are the odds that 4 individuals would state that they were all in a place at a specific time..within 5 minutes of each other, and all them were mistaken? I wont even bother with this interruption nonsense, you might as well be suggesting that Liz danced with her killer. There is as much evidence for one as there is the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Your problem must be low self esteem Herlock, refusal to make any decision often is. Maybe he was interrupted, maybe everyone lied except for Louis. Maybe only Jack killed in that area. All hogwash.
    A perfect example in your use of the word ‘lied.’ It’s all about conspiracy/cover up. What about ‘error?’ Witnesses can be mistaken.

    No Michael it’s the opposite of an arrogant belief that simply because you’ve come up with a scenario then it must be true. Any balanced observer on the case, even if they were of the belief that Stride wasn’t a victim, would accept the very obvious possibility that the killer was interrupted. They would accept the possibility because it’s as certain as anything can be in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Louis said he arrived at 1. 4 people said he was there at 12:40...thats not a little discrepancy. Thats a rebuttal to just one of your comments which were already fairly dealt with in my post 904. Ive had enough of having to repeat something just because you wont accept reality.
    I won’t accept ‘reality’ along with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those interested in the case. It seems like everyone stupid and blind except for you Michael? Or..........maybe you’re wrong

    And it’s not even in the same country as a rebuttal. Those 4 were wrong. They made mistakes. Spooner said that he arrived 5 minutes before Lamb. So he’s gone. Shouldn’t be mentioned again in terms of this 12.45 nonesense. As for Hoschberg/Henschberg:

    ”Yes; I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to one o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter”

    So he was guessing and the policeman’s whistle seals it........dismissed as mistaken. That’s 2 gone.

    Kozebroski:


    About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard.” Whaddya know? Another guess. Thats 3 gone.

    What about Eagle?:


    “He returned at 12.35am and as the front door was shut, he went through the open gates of Dutfield's Yard in order to enter the club via the back door. It was very dark, too dark to see if anybody was lying there and he did not remember seeing anybody in Berner Street.

    On reentering the club he went to see a friend in an upstairs room and later joined him in singing a Russian-language song. He had been there about twenty minutes when a club member named Gilleman came upstairs and said that there was a dead woman in the yard.”

    And so 12.35 + 20 = 12.55am. And notice that he says about 20 minutes. So it’s an estimation. Send for the conspiracy police he was just over 5 minutes out! A simple error so he can very easily be dismissed. That’s 4 gone.

    And Fanny Mortimer that keeps being trotted out to ‘dismiss’ Schwartz? Well, according to the Evening News report, she wasn’t on her doorstep for most of the half an hour and if we take PC Smith’s timing, on a regulated beat and after just passing a clock, over a woman who we can’t even be sure owned a clock (despite you claiming that she had....with no evidence of this) then she had gone back inside her house when Schwartz past. She then ‘conveniently hears a horse and cart (which you say couldn’t have been Diemschutz) before the commotion from the yard.

    ........

    So I’m happy with the established (non-conspiracy) version of events and not one that relies on fallible witnesses who were making estimations.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Your problem must be low self esteem Herlock, refusal to make any decision often is. Maybe he was interrupted, maybe everyone lied except for Louis. Maybe only Jack killed in that area. All hogwash.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Ill repeat. There’s no mystery here. A few errors/discrepancies but no great mystery.
    Louis said he arrived at 1. 4 people said he was there at 12:40...thats not a little discrepancy. Thats a rebuttal to just one of your comments which were already fairly dealt with in my post 904. Ive had enough of having to repeat something just because you wont accept reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Well lets start at the top shall we....there is no evidnec that Liz Stride was soliciting the night she is killed, she was known to work as a prostitute, she was potentially seen with more than one man......definitely a yes.there is for both the prior Canonical victims...so WORKING street woman, no. This is nitpicking, she was a prostitute. Throat cut is accurate, whereas both the priors had double throat cuts that nicked their spines. So, less dramatic cut on Stride. In the right area...if you mean where other murders had occurred, yeah. Right time period...hours earlier than both priors, so no. No I mean taking place within the time frame of a very obvious series...so yes.Liz left her house having earned 6d that day, we dont know if it was taken from her or if she spent it on cachous and/or a flower arrangement, so.. perhaps. So there’s a chance that she was robbed and murdered for sixpence?

    Lets see if there is any evidence that Liz Strides killer didnt complete what he intended....there isnt any. How many times are you going to trot this one out Michael? It’s meaningless. So that last line is purely speculative and not based on any known facts. No this is a cast-iron, incontrovertible, unarguable, set in stone, beyond debate point. The killer could have been interrupted. I’ll repeat that I’m not saying that he was but he could have been. There isn’t a single thing that you can point to which challenges this.

    As I said before, these are all attempts to address why Liz Stride dies unlike any other Canonical, and most of the rest of the Unsolved Murders file. They are grasps at straws, ..instead of taking whats there youd like to create a scenario based on a serial mutilator. A serial mutilator that we know existed

    And I’m sorry Michael but that’s not true about grasping at straws. What you’re doing is taking any little errors or discrepancies that very naturally occur when there a various sources for how things are reported and placing too great an importance on them to weave a scenario. Spooner is a perfect example. You keep quoting his guessed time and yet you ignore the fact that he said that he’d arrive 5 minutes before Lamb. So one of your props has to be immediately eliminated.
    Ill repeat. There’s no mystery here. A few errors/discrepancies but no great mystery.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X