Originally posted by Tom_Wescott
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Berner Street Con(spiracy)
Collapse
X
-
The Con(spiracy).
If IWMEC club members lied to protect the killer, whose identity they knew, that would be a conspiracy. But if they simply fudged the details a little, without knowing the identity of the killer, that is not a conspiracy.
If someone, such as La Grand, got Packer to lie to protect the killer, that would be a conspiracy. But if Packer simply made up extra stories in hoping for reward money, that would not be a conspiracy.
If Liz Stride was not a victim of the serial murderer, and if the police misread the signals and clues, that would not constitute a conspiracy on the part of the police, simply a mistake. The police didn't do conspiracies.
RoySink the Bismark
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View PostThe Con(spiracy).
If IWMEC club members lied to protect the killer, whose identity they knew, that would be a conspiracy. But if they simply fudged the details a little, without knowing the identity of the killer, that is not a conspiracy.
If someone, such as La Grand, got Packer to lie to protect the killer, that would be a conspiracy. But if Packer simply made up extra stories in hoping for reward money, that would not be a conspiracy.
If Liz Stride was not a victim of the serial murderer, and if the police misread the signals and clues, that would not constitute a conspiracy on the part of the police, simply a mistake. The police didn't do conspiracies.
Roy
Comment
-
I reread Sugden last night. Here is what he has to say with regards to Liz being a Ripper victim -- "On the evidence as it now stands, however, it seems probable that she was struck down by the slayer of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman. The case for discounting Elizabeth as a Ripper victim is not as weighty as it first appears...In many respects the Stride murder was very much like its predecessors."
"The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Philip Sugden, pages 210-11.
With respect to the BS man being her killer, Sugden has this to say -- "Before considering the implications of Schwartz's evidence we had best remind ourselves that there is a real possibility that his sighting had nothing to do with the murder." (p. 213)
"We do not know that he (Schwartz) was mistaken but it will always be on the cards that he was witness to nothing more than a street brawl." (p. 214)
His opinion is interesting is it not?
c.d.
Comment
-
Thanks, CD. Sugden's opinion is always interesting - although what he says on this occasion does not preclude the scenario whereby "nothing more than" a brawl can be a prelude to manslaughter, or even murder.Last edited by Sam Flynn; 04-16-2009, 08:13 PM.Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Comment
-
It's very interesting, Thanks for the quote, c.d. But it doesn't address the thread - Con(spiracy). It addresses the generic debate had many times already - "was Stride a Ripper victim." *
Likewise Mal X, your hunch that Hutch was JtR doesn't address the thread either.
So far, three possible conspiracies have been raised on this thread. Club members, Packer, and the authorities. And for any of those to be a conspiracy, someone had to know the identity of the killer, and withhold it, or lie to protect the killer.
Roy
*(who hijacked it, was it Simon? gonna send Klebb after him)Sink the Bismark
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View PostTaking ALL things into consideration, Mary Kelly's murder has less in common with the rest than Stride's, but I wouldn't exclude any of them offhand.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Cheers Tom
Comment
-
Im not sure why the semantics bother you so much Roy...
Wikipedia;
"A conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence."
Knowingly giving false witness testimony in conjunction with other parties by prior agreement....is indeed a Conspiracy.
If the club members decided on a story, instead of telling what they saw or knew, then they conspired to break the law......thats only the story.....they may have had nothing to do with the murder itself.
As for Mr Sugden, my favorite source, he neglected to point out that Mr Israel Schwartz and his Broadshouldered Man altercation are not official records. We have only a reminiscence of the details. The records suggest that Mr Brown saw Liz last, and with a man seemingly blocking her path with his arm on the wall, nowhere near the front gates at 12:45am.
Best regards all.
Comment
-
Although many investigators freely offered their own opinions on who the Ripper killed, and most agreed that Liz should be involved, the records officially do not suggest that.
They suggest Mr Shabby Genteel likely killed Annie,... Mr Broadshouldered Man likely killed Liz Stride with Schwartz, Mr Long Coat if Browns account is used,...... Mr Sailor Man almost for certain killed Kate, and Blotchy Face is the last man seen with Mary Jane alive.
Best regards
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by perrymason View PostI believe some can be discarded, and perhaps one or more added in their place....for example Alice Mckenzie has more in common with Polly, Annie and Kate than either Ms C3 or Ms C5.
You're starting to get it. Alice McKenzie was a typical JTR victim.
The fact that she wasn't regarded as such by Sir MM in his secret memorandum (not seen until the 1960s) proves a certain thing.
Which is that JTR was under lock and key in early 1889.
To my mind, anyway.allisvanityandvexationofspirit
Comment
Comment