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

    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.


    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

      Just a low tolerance for reading tripe posing as fact Caz, but thanks for the concern.
      Pot - Kettle - Black
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • 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.
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        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.
        Last edited by caz; 12-10-2020, 03:13 PM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


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

          Originally posted by caz View Post

          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.
          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 12-10-2020, 03:52 PM.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • Ive been dealing with crap like this for years, people who want to believe in Santa Claus, or in this case, Anti-Claus. I dont care anymore about reminding you or anyone else of what the evidence says. Good luck to you on your monster hunt. Im done.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              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?
              It's cocoanuts! Well, some reports do say that Louis sold cocoanuts from his cart. Perhaps he cut them in half and did a Monty Python?
              ​​​​​​

              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?
                Too easy, Herlock. It must be more complex than that, or it's no fun for the conspiracy theorists.

                What are the chances of one of the throat-cutting mutilation murders happening within an hour of the one throat-cutting murder where the only significant differences were a) the absence of mutilation, and b) some fairly obvious reasons why an attempted mutilation on this occasion would have been inadvisable, and a successful one unlikely?

                Michael can move the pony and cart around like pieces on a chess board; suggest that Mrs M had defective hearing; and accuse Louis D of trying to pervert the course of justice, but the fact remains that he did arrive, and he did discover Stride, very shortly after her killer must have been there, cutting her throat. How much opportunity was there, realistically, for the killer - whoever he was - to have hung about at the scene before he too would have been discovered there? That doesn't prove he was the same man who seized the opportunity to mutilate victims in Buck's Row, Hanbury St, Mitre Square and Miller's Court, and got away safely each time, despite the difficulties of all those locations, but it certainly can't rule him out.

                The killer in every case was lucky, but also no idiot. Would he have hung around to mutilate Nichols, if Cross and Paul had come along a bit earlier? No, of course not. Would he have hung around to mutilate Chapman, if someone had come into the yard at the wrong moment? No, he wouldn't. Similarly with Eddowes and Kelly, in their respective locations. How many women could anyone have expected to mutilate in peace, without a witness potentially catching him at it?

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Nah Josh,his hovercraft was too full of eels.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Perhaps the first horse and cart noises were drowned out by the bouzouki music coming from the club?

                    Comment


                    • Saz you.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                        Nah Josh,his hovercraft was too full of eels.


                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • .
                          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 help yourself with this question can you Michael. I’ll repeat my scenario..

                          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?

                          .......

                          IF THE KILLER WAS INTERRUPTED WE COULD EXPECT NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT INTERRUPTION.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • Sorry, one more for the road..I had to after that post...

                            "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?"

                            I would have evidence that you were a thief via the witness, and questions as to how you expected to get her shoes when you wrestled with a handbag. Personally I wish you take her computer, but anyway...

                            Demonstrably a thief, like Strides killer was demonstrably a killer. The knife wielding maniac Caz referred to isnt in that crimes evidence. Just a guy with a knife. Like thousands of others in that city at that time.

                            But you favour one stop shopping...like the people who imagine this one man is the only one who mutilates, dismembers, makes one cut, cleans windows, sweeps chimneys, and validates cart and horse parking.

                            As you can tell Im no longer taking this seriously, because that would be giving it credibility. Of which there is none in sight.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              Sorry, one more for the road..I had to after that post...

                              "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?"

                              I would have evidence that you were a thief via the witness, and questions as to how you expected to get her shoes when you wrestled with a handbag. Personally I wish you take her computer, but anyway...

                              Demonstrably a thief, like Strides killer was demonstrably a killer. The knife wielding maniac Caz referred to isnt in that crimes evidence. Just a guy with a knife. Like thousands of others in that city at that time.

                              But you favour one stop shopping...like the people who imagine this one man is the only one who mutilates, dismembers, makes one cut, cleans windows, sweeps chimneys, and validates cart and horse parking.

                              As you can tell Im no longer taking this seriously, because that would be giving it credibility. Of which there is none in sight.
                              Crap answer.

                              The answer is that you would have had absolutely no way of knowing that I’d intended to take the shoes. Just like the killer of Stride.

                              QED
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                                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."
                                If 2 papers say x, and 1 says y, we should probably take the 2 over the 1 - highest count detail wins.
                                Definitely if it were 3 vs 1.

                                If 2 papers say x, and 1 says x + y, we should probably go with the 1 - most detail wins.
                                Definitely so if it's 2 vs 2.

                                If 1 paper says x, and 2 papers have no equivalent, we should go with the 1 - only detail wins.

                                If 1 paper says x, and another says -x, it should go to discussion, and/or both versions be regarded as equally plausible - neither detail wins
                                2x vs -x would be equivalent to highest count detail wins.

                                These rules would be a good start in dealing with conflicts of detail, but only if that detail is fairly unambiguous.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X