Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    You forget that 3 women had their throats cut and died that night, but 2 are unsolved. Another murder happening that night isnt sufficient grounds for it or any murder to be matched with another by a single killer Herlock, surely you realize that. The 2 acts have very little in common aside from a knife being used.
    It's a matter of perception though. The murder of Sarah Brown is another throat cutting killing. That's all that links Stride to Eddowes likewise. But the differences in the Brown case render that similarity moot. A domestic, at home, with the killer turning himself in straight away.

    We can view the throat cut as a tenuous link between Stride and Eddowes, but the fact that these were random killings, outdoors, of the poorest class of women, in close proximity to each other and previous deaths with the same profile make those similarities outweigh the differences. It just depends how you look at it.

    Add the fact that a torso was found in Whitehall at this time, and it's not unreasonable to wonder just how many madmen were in London in 1888.
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

      It's a matter of perception though. The murder of Sarah Brown is another throat cutting killing. That's all that links Stride to Eddowes likewise. But the differences in the Brown case render that similarity moot. A domestic, at home, with the killer turning himself in straight away.

      We can view the throat cut as a tenuous link between Stride and Eddowes, but the fact that these were random killings, outdoors, of the poorest class of women, in close proximity to each other and previous deaths with the same profile make those similarities outweigh the differences. It just depends how you look at it.

      Add the fact that a torso was found in Whitehall at this time, and it's not unreasonable to wonder just how many madmen were in London in 1888.
      Well, all I can say is that both Physical and Circumstantial evidence available for the Stride killing suggests the virtual opposite of the Ripper, who sought to mutilate more than just kill, and killed working street women. The first 2 cases were almost a match in every significant aspect. Strides murder matches these preceding events in only 2 aspects, that she was killed off the street like Annie was, and with a knife.

      Comment


      • Prostitute (full or part time).......tick
        Throat cut...............................tick
        Mutilation................................No
        In the right area.......................tick
        At the right time period.............tick
        No robbery..............................tick

        And we have a plausible possible explanation for the ‘no.’

        And we might ask ‘what would a killer intent on mutilation do if he was prevented from doing so?’ I’d suggest that he might go looking for another victim?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Prostitute (full or part time).......tick
          Throat cut...............................tick
          Mutilation................................No
          In the right area.......................tick
          At the right time period.............tick
          No robbery..............................tick

          And we have a plausible possible explanation for the ‘no.’

          And we might ask ‘what would a killer intent on mutilation do if he was prevented from doing so?’ I’d suggest that he might go looking for another victim?
          Well lets start at the top shall we....there is no evidnec that Liz Stride was soliciting the night she is killed, there is for both the prior Canonical victims...so WORKING street woman, no. 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. 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.

          Lets see if there is any evidence that Liz Strides killer didnt complete what he intended....there isnt any. So that last line is purely speculative and not based on any known facts.

          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.

          Comment


          • 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.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • 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.’
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • 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
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • 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?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X