Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


    It is a 100% certain, unchallengeable fact that Liz Stride's killer could have been disturbed.
    It is is it? Now that youve made the "sweeping" statement, how about some proof that it could have been the case. I can certainly prove using only known evidence that there are zero indications he was....but you know better, right?

    The fact that people argue with the known evidence so they can favour some other personal agenda isnt new, its just old.

    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      Are you not in favour of 'someone stalking street prostitutes', Michael, in the cases of Nichols and Chapman? Have you got the 'ultimate handle' on who that was, and can say that he left the stage for others to carry on the tradition with Eddowes and Kelly?



      What have I claimed to have 'solved' all by my lonesome? When have I tried to 'take a bow' for things that have not been resolved and almost certainly never will be? Our opinions are all we are left with. I'd have more respect for yours, even the blackmail nonsense, if you at least allowed for alternative possibilities, in the way that I and most other posters do as a matter of course.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      I dont think even you would dispute that Polly and Annie were killed while trawling for customers, so....where is the proof Liz, Kate and Mary were doing the same? Or does your Ripper fellow change what is at the core of how he finds victims? I know some would imagine he also holes up in warehouses making torso's as a sideline..

      None of this is worth anything in the investigations anyway, clearly 1 man did trawl for working street women, and just as clearly 3 of the 5 Canonical cannot be proven to have been so engaged at the time they die. The evidence wins,...and all this MO morphing and interruption fantasizing is just to try and perpetuate myths. Dream all you like, its not like any of these killers are still on the loose, nor is it likely that a majority of people will use only the evidence to figure these out...so, have at it. Maybe put him on a great black steed too. All that these "most other posters" do is regurgitate the same old tired mythologies and try to make them seem more palatable by finding some serial killer stats that they hope will validate their imaginative perspectives. But this isnt just playtime for me, I actually am interested in truths. Which after all this time here, still seem elusive to most.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        I dont think even you would dispute that Polly and Annie were killed while trawling for customers, so....where is the proof Liz, Kate and Mary were doing the same? Or does your Ripper fellow change what is at the core of how he finds victims?
        Consider the possibility that some of the victims may have impinged on Jack, causing a violent reaction. Not the other way around.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          It is is it? Now that youve made the "sweeping" statement, how about some proof that it could have been the case. I can certainly prove using only known evidence that there are zero indications he was....but you know better, right?

          The fact that people argue with the known evidence so they can favour some other personal agenda isnt new, its just old.
          Firstly Michael, your pointed comment about favouring some personal agenda is a difficult (I'd say impossible) one to justify as I've repeatedly said that I accept the possibility that Stride's killer might not have been the ripper. Indeed I've stated the specific reason for any doubts that I have is based on the riskiness of the location. So quite what my 'agenda' is I can't say. You, on the other hand, I believe, have a theory on what occurred. I have no theory therefore no reason for bias on this issue. And if you should respond by saying that it's because I believe in the existence of a 'ripper' then yes I'm guilty as charged along with the overwhelming majority of people interested in the case and I'd still believe the same if there was some way to prove that Stride wasn't killed by him. That proof doesn't exist though.

          Secondly, you're claim that "I can certainly prove using only known evidence that there are zero indications that he was...but you know better right?"

          Well yes I do actually because I know that the above statement is completely meaningless. I've asked you at least three times what would constitute evidence of interruption and the only thing that you've suggested is 'someone seen leaving the scene' which is embarrassingly weak as I'm sure that you realise.

          If the killer, after cutting Stride's throat, heard a horse and cart near to the gate it would have been perfectly understandable if he'd ducked into the shadow or behind the gate to see if the cart was going to pass by. If it had passed he could have continued.

          And so if we for the sake of argument could freeze frame that scene (and assume that the knifeman was the ripper) what specific evidence would you expect to see that would indicate that the killer had been interrupted? We have a woman dead with her throat cut.

          What you're doing, and you know that you're doing it, is asking for evidence that can't exist. And then when we can't name that non-existant 'evidence' it's "aha, it couldn't have been the ripper!"

          No one can 'prove' that this was a ripper killing Michael. But equally no one can disprove it either. I don't understand why this state of affairs appears to annoy you?

          It's a matter of interpretation and opinion.
          Regards

          Herlock




          “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
          As night descends upon this fabled street:
          A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
          The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
          Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
          And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

          Comment


          • . clearly 1 man did trawl for working street women, and just as clearly 3 of the 5 Canonical cannot be proven to have been so engaged at the time they die
            They certainly didn't clock on or off but why do you ask for evidence that's close to impossible to achieve? Why does absolute proof have to exist of soliciting? Can you prove that they weren't? No.

            And so we are left with Polly Nichols, a woman that resorted to prostitution, walking the streets in the early hours after telling her friend that she was going to earn some money.

            Annie Chapman killed in the backyard of a house where Richardson has previously turfed out prostitutes and punters.

            Liz Stride, a known prostitute (yes who also did cleaning work) being seen with more than one man over a short space of time.

            Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square. Yes, out of her way. She may not actually have been soliciting of course but she may have bumped into a bloke that assumed that she was and she thought that she might as well earn a bit of cash.

            Mary Kelly, known prostitute killed in her room.

            All of these could have been actively soliciting at the time of their murder or they could have simply been propositioned when they were on their way somewhere.
            Regards

            Herlock




            “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
            As night descends upon this fabled street:
            A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
            The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
            Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
            And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              In a roundabout way, yes.
              A Statement is given to police, whereas Testimony is given in a court.
              I'm saying he may have assumed what Abberline wrote was from Schwartz's Testimony, not from his Statement.
              Why would he assume it - did he not see the interview notes? Did he also assume Hutchinson had testified?
              To make such an assumption, could he have already been under the impression that Schwartz had testified?
              If no, then there are really two assumptions - Schwartz testified, and what Abberline wrote was in reference to that, and not his statement.
              Is it conceivable he had been misled? Could Anderson's misunderstanding have been the catalyst for the Polish Jew story?

              It really doesn't matter, Schwartz was not in court, we can debate 'till the cows come home any reason why, it still doesn't change the fact he did not appear in court.
              Then we are left with the mystery as to why such an obvious candidate for inclusion in the inquest, never appeared.

              By the way, would inquest juries have been given lists of witnesses called to appear, or were witnesses more or less 'sprung' on the jury, one by one?
              If the former, then I would presume the jury would have known exactly who Baxter was referring to, when he commenced his summing up...

              The Coroner, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time.

              The cause of death has been determined, and Phillips has testified on the post-mortem examination.
              The Elizabeth Watts/Stoke issue has been cleared up, and the victim's identity has been ascertained.
              What could 'the chance of something further being ascertained' refer to, other than the appearance at the inquest of Israel Schwartz?
              So where is he? Are we even prepared to admit that something seems not to be right?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                Who's Andrew??
                Andrew's the man, who thinks he may be at the wrong address
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                  Consider the possibility that some of the victims may have impinged on Jack, causing a violent reaction. Not the other way around.
                  Like the blackmail theories, this suggestion is verging on 'blame the victim' territory.
                  Consider the possibility that this is fodder for people like Hallie Rubenhold.
                  Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-19-2020, 07:21 AM.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    If the killer, after cutting Stride's throat, heard a horse and cart near to the gate it would have been perfectly understandable if he'd ducked into the shadow or behind the gate to see if the cart was going to pass by. If it had passed he could have continued.
                    Behind the gate? Echo, Oct 1:

                    There are a pair of iron-studded and iron-capped gates at the entrance to the yard, in which are one or two cottage residences, besides stables.


                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Dutfield's_Yard_(Berner_Street%2C_Whitechapel).jpg
Views:	79
Size:	65.1 KB
ID:	746817


                    And so if we for the sake of argument could freeze frame that scene (and assume that the knifeman was the ripper) what specific evidence would you expect to see that would indicate that the killer had been interrupted? We have a woman dead with her throat cut.
                    So what if we look at a frame 10 seconds later? Or 30? Or a minute? What would you expect to see then?
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      Who's Andrew??
                      Ahem. Perhaps one of our members could furnish us with a photo, for clarification purposes...
                      Thems the Vagaries.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        They certainly didn't clock on or off but why do you ask for evidence that's close to impossible to achieve? Why does absolute proof have to exist of soliciting? Can you prove that they weren't? No.
                        In Stride's case, the fact that she was found to be carrying no coins is close to proof she was not soliciting that night.
                        I guess it's a possibility that the interrupted killer, interrupted his own getaway to rummage around in her pockets for money, and then stuffed the other stuff back in before fleeing the scene, but I don't think this possibility is very plausible, and I'm a great believer in plausibility.

                        Annie Chapman killed in the backyard of a house where Richardson has previously turfed out prostitutes and punters.
                        Oh, so that's why Richardson always took a knife there with him - for a bit of extra insurance when turfing out the prostitutes and patrons!
                        Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-19-2020, 08:23 AM.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          In Stride's case, the fact that she was found to be carrying no coins is close to proof she was not soliciting that night.
                          I guess it's a possibility that the interrupted killer, interrupted his own getaway to rummage around in her pockets for money, and then stuffed the other stuff back in before fleeing the scene, but I don't think this possibility is very plausible, and I'm a great believer in plausibility.

                          More flights of fancy. Either she didn't earn money or spent it or owed it or BS man took it from her. Maybe she wasn't soliciting she was just very sociable. Or maybe she wasn't actively soliciting but someone recognised her as a prostitute and propositioned her?

                          You cannot prove that the killer wasn't interrupted. Take as long as you like
                          .

                          Oh, so that's why Richardson always took a knife there with him - for a bit of extra insurance when turfing out the prostitutes and patrons!

                          Maybe. But we know that it's what he said that he'd done.
                          Interruption is entirely plausible and if we're both still posting on here in ten years time it will still be the case that no one will have come up with evidence to disprove it.

                          Regards

                          Herlock




                          “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                          As night descends upon this fabled street:
                          A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                          The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                          Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                          And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            Behind the gate? Echo, Oct 1:

                            There are a pair of iron-studded and iron-capped gates at the entrance to the yard, in which are one or two cottage residences, besides stables.


                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Dutfield's_Yard_(Berner_Street%2C_Whitechapel).jpg
Views:	79
Size:	65.1 KB
ID:	746817




                            So what if we look at a frame 10 seconds later? Or 30? Or a minute? What would you expect to see then?
                            If you look in Philip Hutchinson's excellent The Jack The Ripper Location Photographs on page 59 you will see this quote:

                            "Researcher Tom Westcott undertook an exhaustive study of Berner Street which was published in Ripper Notes in 2007.....the entrance into Berner Street was 9'2" wide. Although there were wooden doors at the time of the murder, by the time the famous image of Berner Street was taken on 7th April 1909 (shortly before demolition) they had been replaced by metal gates."

                            Do you want to look at that freeze frame again?
                            Regards

                            Herlock




                            “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                            As night descends upon this fabled street:
                            A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                            The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                            Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                            And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              If you look in Philip Hutchinson's excellent The Jack The Ripper Location Photographs on page 59 you will see this quote:

                              "Researcher Tom Westcott undertook an exhaustive study of Berner Street which was published in Ripper Notes in 2007.....the entrance into Berner Street was 9'2" wide. Although there were wooden doors at the time of the murder, by the time the famous image of Berner Street was taken on 7th April 1909 (shortly before demolition) they had been replaced by metal gates."

                              Do you want to look at that freeze frame again?
                              I may be misremembering here, Herlock, but I think it has been established that the construction of the doors was such as to disenable anybody hiding behind them - there was simply not the space available for it.

                              I will go looking for a substantiation, but while I do, maybe sonebody who recalls the same can verify what I am saying?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                If you look in Philip Hutchinson's excellent The Jack The Ripper Location Photographs on page 59 you will see this quote:

                                "Researcher Tom Westcott undertook an exhaustive study of Berner Street which was published in Ripper Notes in 2007.....the entrance into Berner Street was 9'2" wide. Although there were wooden doors at the time of the murder, by the time the famous image of Berner Street was taken on 7th April 1909 (shortly before demolition) they had been replaced by metal gates."
                                The contemporary drawing attached to the following post, would seem to show the same or similar gate as the photo.
                                Berner Street - Drawing from Ipswich Journal

                                Do you want to look at that freeze frame again?
                                Sure, but which one - 0, 10, 30, or 60 seconds?
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X