A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[Garza]

Hello Garza. Then how do you account for Spooner's time as well as Kozebrodski's?

I daresay Wess saw Liz's body. (Review his "reason" for looking towards the gates.)

Cheers.
LC

People didn't have watches and mistook time, even PC Smith did it. Actually this point goes against your hypothesis entirely imo. If there was an organised story to tell the police it is likely they would have got the timing down and syncronised, not giving times with half an hour difference. perrymason is truely alive and well lol joke.

Regarding Wess you cannot know that and is just speculation. Expecially when walking you generally look ahead of you (where the gates were).

Take care Lynn.

[lynn cates]

dark

Hello Garza.

"That corner was dark."

But no darker than Dutfield's yard or Buck's Row.

But I do agree with your overall perspective regarding Liz--IF one believes in Jack the Ripper, and IF one thinks he killed Liz, then BS man needs to be taken out of the equation.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Garza,

only one thing...you said..

"You are saying that the name Jack the Ripper made people think murders were atrributed to him when they were not. I disagree. They may have been made by different hands, but the name is irrevalent (semantic)."

Far from it. I am saying that Jack the Ripper..the phenonemon, didnt start until after 30 Sept. I didn't say JTR made people think it.. I am saying that the press and the police made people think it... AFTER 30th Sept. It was the scare that held the weight of opinion amongst the masses.

best wishes

Phil

[Garza]

Hello (again) Garza. True, Baxter was not the medical person in charge, but surely he got his information from one.

I am not clear that Baxter and the medicos were keying only on the skill of the organ removal (although it likely included that); there was also the matter of how the cuts were made. If I recall properly, the adjective "unskilful" was used.

Are you suggesting that the ambient light at Mitre sq was less than that at Buck's Row and Dutfield's yard?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn thats my point, if done in the dark cuts can look unskilful even by the skilful. You can feel around for the organs, but depth perception is zero, hence he cuts too deep or too shallow making mistakes that he would not usually make.

Bear in mind in Mitre Square a police officer was no more than 15 yards away from the murdered Kate Eddowes (and possible Jack) with a latern and didn't see her (or him). That corner was dark.

[lynn cates]

times

Hello Garza. Then how do you account for Spooner's time as well as Kozebrodski's?

I daresay Wess saw Liz's body. (Review his "reason" for looking towards the gates.)

Cheers.
LC

[Garza]

This is predicated on Diemshitz first finding the body. Not an assumption I would make.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn, Mrs Mortimer went into her house at 12.55am roughly, a few minutes later she hears a horse and cart - around about the same time as Diemshitz. Coincidence? She was staning in the street from 12.45-12.55 give or take a few minutes, seen no-one but Goldstein who backed her up when he walked into the police station. Plus she seen the same couple around the corner as James Brown. As far as ripper witnesses go, shes quite solid.

It wouldn't take IWEC 15mins to have a discussion anyway, and to say so is an assumption.

The likelyhood I think is that there was probably no dicussion, just to run for the police, the cover up if any happened the next day to deflect the heat.

[Garza]

Here I must regretfully correct you. It was Dr. Bond, after being asked for an overview of all the murders by Robert Anderson, that FIRST talked of a limited canon. It was this overview, made from reading all the reports etc, and only having seen one body, on which he based his assertions. Sir MM then defined the canon, in his writings, after the murders.
If you look at all the press reports, which as you put it, MOST people read, they nearly all attributed every murder to the same hand...before the Bond report.

Yes there are murders attributed to the Whitechapel murderer/Jack the Ripper that he did now do by the media eg. Emma Smith. That still does mean he didn't kill the said women in question.

Sematics?... perhaps, if you wish to look at it that way. I am not forcing you to follow anything. It isn't just semantics..if you wish to follow another train of thought.

You are saying that the name Jack the Ripper made people think murders were atrributed to him when they were not. I disagree. They may have been made by different hands, but the name is irrevalent (semantic).

How do you know he was IN control? There is no evidence for that he was of sound mind. There is no evidence he wasn't either. If you wish to pooh pooh every line ..its easy... watch...

I never said he was in control, I never made any claim. You are the one who made the claim - therefore you have to provide evidence for it. The person who states a positive is the one who has to put forward evidence for it.

For example if I said "there are fairies at the botton of my garden" I would have to prove it. I cannot retort "can you disprove there are fairies at the bottom of my garden".

I do not base my reasoning on a favourite suspect. And after 40 odd years, I think that most people know I do not choose lightly. I merely pointed out that in my opinion, he was a far better suspect, background and mental health related, than a man stamped as JTR based on the worst of vices..masturbating in a gutter.... AND NO EVIDENCE.

As far as I know, no suspect has evidence that he/she is the murderer is question.

I do not think of Stride and location south of the Whitechapel Road being the thing that makes her stand out. For me, and about, at the last estimate I saw on these boards, 50% of the others, she is a doubt as far as being one of the C5. There is enough doubt to bring her inclusion into question.

Actually its more like 33%, but anyway. There is doubt in most things in this case. But you have to look at the evidence objectively and say which is more likely given the evidence at present. At the moment there is more swinging Stride was a Ripper victim than isn't. But I do suspect there will be a element of doubt with her for a while.

You write... where's your evidence of a copycat? I ask.. where's yours that it wasn't? I too refer you to Baxter's comments at the Stride inquest. Very interesting indeed. (Thank you Lynn)

Again stating a positive, the reponsibility is on you to prove the positive. The null hypothesis is the status quo until proven otherwise.

My reply to Baxter is stated above.

And do pray tell me what is so DANGEROUS about trying another line? Is the world about to implode because of this? Will each and every person thinking like this suddenly be stricken with jove-like contempt for the rest of humanity? Dangerous? Hang on.. I will get my suit of armour. incase of an invasion... please excuse my frivolity. But after 40 years of study, the world hasn't turned on me because of an opinion to look in other areas....yet.

Knight put Ripperology back decades through bad reasoning and bias opinion and we are still trying to get rid of the misinformation - that kinda dangerous.

It's Xmas Garza, we are not out to tear strips of one another... this isn't the trenches. As I believe that we have not encountered one another before, please be aware that I write WITHOUT venom nor rancour. Always with a smile.. However you do remind me of someone from a while ago that went missing from these boards under another name.

No rancour from me, just debate on a lazy xmas eve.

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello (again) Garza. True, Baxter was not the medical person in charge, but surely he got his information from one.

I am not clear that Baxter and the medicos were keying only on the skill of the organ removal (although it likely included that); there was also the matter of how the cuts were made. If I recall properly, the adjective "unskilful" was used.

Are you suggesting that the ambient light at Mitre sq was less than that at Buck's Row and Dutfield's yard?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

time

Hello Garza.

"Lynn, the timing does not allow a 15 min chat between IWEC members, maybe a few minutes at the most."

Why not? What timing?

"Mrs. Mortimer had the cart going past her house around 1am, Goldstein supports her testimony as well. The doctor was called for at 1.10am roughly and that's after running around trying to find police constables. Few minutes chat maybe."

This is predicated on Diemshitz first finding the body. Not an assumption I would make.

Cheers.
LC

[Garza]

Hello Garza. In your post to Phil:

"Eddowes had more damage do[ne] to her that Nichols. More importantly do you have any evidence it was a copy cat?"

Try Wynne Baxter's summary at the Stride inquest when he references Eddowes. Interesting.

Cheers.
LC

Baxter wasn't a medical man, but I digress.

Easily explainable, from personal experience actually - not im not a serial killer lol, on dissecting rats.

I'm pretty good at dissecting a rat, I know where all the anatomy is, know what to clip where etc etc. Me being a little cocky said I could do it with my eyes close to my boss, boss bet me £10 I couldn't do it without making a mess out if it. He won the bet.

With your eyes closed I knew where everything was anatomically wise, but I had to feel for everything, I cut too deep, or not deep enough, I made a mess of the membranes especially. I could removes organs though, by the feel of them.

Polly Nichols had no organs removed, only slashes to the epidermis.
Annie Chapman was mutilated as dawn was breaking - there was adequate light.
Kate Eddowes was mutilated in the dark, he could still remove organs by feeling for them, but he made a bit of a mess of it.

[Garza]

I'm not so sure. Suppose you were the least popular person in a small rural town and the townspeople "had it in" for you. You even hear that the police are keeping tabs on you, waiting for something slightly out of line to happen so that they can pounce. Now, you find a dead body on your doorstep. Do you act precipitously and put the body in your car to dispose of elsewhere? Do you immediately contact the police--your sworn enemies? Or do you utter an expletive and try to get clear on a plan of action?

Cheers.
LC

Lynn, the timing does not allow a 15 min chat between IWEC members, maybe a few minutes at the most.

Mrs. Mortimer had the cart going past her house around 1am, Goldstein supports her testimony as well. The doctor was called for at 1.10am roughly and thats after running around trying to find police constables. Few minutes chat maybe.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Garza,

Thank you for your comments. I am not basing on anything, I am merely opening the eyes wider. I don't say it was so....but it was I, not an account of the LVP when referring to the term serial killer. I am perfectly aware that the term did not exist at the time, but thank you for pointing it out.

Now..to your comments---



Here I must regretfully correct you. It was Dr. Bond, after being asked for an overview of all the murders by Robert Anderson, that FIRST talked of a limited canon. It was this overview, made from reading all the reports etc, and only having seen one body, on which he based his assertions. Sir MM then defined the canon, in his writings, after the murders.
If you look at all the press reports, which as you put it, MOST people read, they nearly all attributed every murder to the same hand...before the Bond report.

Sematics?... perhaps, if you wish to look at it that way. I am not forcing you to follow anything. It isn't just semantics..if you wish to follow another train of thought.

How do you know he was IN control? There is no evidence for that he was of sound mind. There is no evidence he wasn't either. If you wish to pooh pooh every line ..its easy... watch...

I do not base my reasoning on a favourite suspect. And after 40 odd years, I think that most people know I do not choose lightly. I merely pointed out that in my opinion, he was a far better suspect, background and mental health related, than a man stamped as JTR based on the worst of vices..masturbating in a gutter.... AND NO EVIDENCE.

I do not think of Stride and location south of the Whitechapel Road being the thing that makes her stand out. For me, and about, at the last estimate I saw on these boards, 50% of the others, she is a doubt as far as being one of the C5. There is enough doubt to bring her inclusion into question.

You write... where's your evidence of a copycat? I ask.. where's yours that it wasn't? I too refer you to Baxter's comments at the Stride inquest. Very interesting indeed. (Thank you Lynn)

And do pray tell me what is so DANGEROUS about trying another line? Is the world about to implode because of this? Will each and every person thinking like this suddenly be stricken with jove-like contempt for the rest of humanity? Dangerous? Hang on.. I will get my suit of armour. incase of an invasion... please excuse my frivolity. But after 40 years of study, the world hasn't turned on me because of an opinion to look in other areas....yet.

It's Xmas Garza, we are not out to tear strips of one another... this isn't the trenches. As I believe that we have not encountered one another before, please be aware that I write WITHOUT venom nor rancour. Always with a smile.. However you do remind me of someone from a while ago that went missing from these boards under another name.

So if you wish an argument, please reset your sights.. I do not argue. And that goes for everything above. Nicely and quietly.Oh, and respectfully too.

Merry Xmas

Phil

[lynn cates]

imitation

Hello Garza. In your post to Phil:

"Eddowes had more damage do[ne] to her that Nichols. More importantly do you have any evidence it was a copy cat?"

Try Wynne Baxter's summary at the Stride inquest when he references Eddowes. Interesting.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

scenario

Hello Garza.

"It wouldn't surprise me that they invented a story w[h]ere gentiles killed Liz in order to take the heat of[f] them."

Right. And this is the whole contention with Schwartz.

"But I can't see the IWEC doing anything sinister in this instance, from what we know."

Agreed again. No one is suggesting anything sinister here--merely a matter of survival.

"They were not standing around for 15 mins deciding what to do when they found Liz . . . ."

I'm not so sure. Suppose you were the least popular person in a small rural town and the townspeople "had it in" for you. You even hear that the police are keeping tabs on you, waiting for something slightly out of line to happen so that they can pounce. Now, you find a dead body on your doorstep. Do you act precipitously and put the body in your car to dispose of elsewhere? Do you immediately contact the police--your sworn enemies? Or do you utter an expletive and try to get clear on a plan of action?

Cheers.
LC

[Garza]

Hello Garza,

Nearly my point... but not quite.
Jack the Ripper, the name, the one man killer idea, came about AFTER 30th September. The attachment of a "serial killer" to the name sealed it, seemingly forever.

So people didn't believe that one man killed Tabrum, Nichols and Chapman - it was only the double event that people said "hmm maybe its the same guy". Jack the Ripper was called the Whitechapel Murderer and Leather Apron before 30th Sept, name change was due to press sensationalism - but that doesn't mean there was more than one killer. I don't know why you are obessed about the name, its just a name.

The term Serial killer was invented until the late 20th century, victorians wouldn't have heard the term serial killer.

The murderer of Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and others AFTER Mary Kelly, were effectively denounced as not being the work of "Jack the Ripper" thanks to a doctor's opinion and a policeman taking his word for it...hence, the C5.

Well no, different people had different ideas how many Jack killed even then, but MOST agreed with the C5 plus a few others.

So therefore, any murder previous to September 30th, (ones without any reference to a letter, written in blood or red ink, or any form of communication) cannot be seen to be "the work of the Ripper", as his apparent emergence as a letter writing, police baiting, loony writing in blood and eating human body parts only suddenly started AFTER the name Jack the Ripper appeared... so why in heavens name didn't "Jack" send anything into the police, newspapers etc BEFORE Sept 27th? After all, if he had killed Chapman and Nicholls, he was STILL just as mad, just as daring, just as bloodthirsty and just as cunning.

This is just semantics! Before 30th Sept he was the Whitechapel Murderer, a letter signed Jack the Ripper gets leaked to the press he is now Jack the Ripper. Doesn't mean he didn't kill all the girls in question. Doesn't men he sent the letter either. Why are you basing the author of each murder on what name the press names the murderer?

How do you know he sent anything? How do even know he would like the name Jack the Ripper anyway?

He cannot have been in control of "when" the time was right to start baiting the police via letters etc... this man is clearly out of control after having disposed of C1 and C2...

There is no evidence that he actually did any baiting at all. How do you know he was "out of control" exactly?

That is why I say it. If JI killed C1 and C2 as Lynn has suggested, and I am still, like Lynn, to see any decent argument against the idea (apart from "there were more murders so it cannot have been JI"...) then we have a totally different scenario.

JI is like other Jack the Ripper suspects - no evidence. It is dangerous to base your reasoning around one person - or a favourite suspect.

And Jack the Ripper was an invention. In name, by the press, and in action...by the people attributing all 5 C5 to one man..hence it MUST be JTR.

And evidence that the people used the press names to establish the killer of each victim? The nature of the murders would have nothing to do with it at all?

Thats where Stride comes in. It could well be, for example, that Tom Westcott happens to be bang on and Le Grande as Stride's killer. Or any foreign Jew, or anarchist..in a one off "slash and dash"... remember Stride is the bony thorn in the side of anyone supporting a C5 theory... then it is simple. Murderer of C1 and C2 locked away incarcerated....Murderer of C3 a one off and he got away with it.

Not a bony thorn to me. She is killed in a manner so like the others that if she had a few slash marks on her stomach no-one would blink an eyelid. People have been obessed about removing Stride from the C5 that they have stretched the limits of logic, such as "Stride cannot be a Ripper victim because she was killed south of Whitechapel road" like Whitechapel road was some Rubicon that the Ripper daren't cross.

Then you can start with who killed Eddowes.. because that COULD be a copycat.. with an intense prolonging of the damage done to Annie Chapman and Polly Nicholls. It is unthinkable, I know. But importantly, Ripperology must think again. Right from the start.

Eddowes had more damage down to her that Nichols. More importantly do you have any evidence it was a copy cat?

And it starts not with Jack the Ripper. It starts with a Whitechapel murderer, one of whom could well be Jacob Isenschmid... a long time before the invention of a loony serial killer with a revolting name.

Again the NAME doesn't matter. Again it was the nature of the killings that tied the C5 together.

Again your basing this all around one person for whom you have no evidence for killing Nichols and Chapman, very dangerous thing to do.