Diemschutz arrival

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"None of us are above error"

Kai sy, teknon...?

Fisherman

[mariab]

No, not apart from Stewart, I'm afraid. None of us are above error, though admittedly, he's more above it than I am!

I for one am not above typos, lol.

And I'm about to send you over a real cool article I've just submitted to my editor (not to Don!), with LOTS of politics and probably lots of typos as well. Conflict between state and church in Verdi’s Risorgimento opera. French influences in models of dramaturgy. Just checking it for typos and translating the French and Italian for ya.

Tom:
"None of us are above error"
Kai sy, teknon...?

This is (ancient) Greek to me.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. I wouldn't understand a word of your essay, I'm afraid.

Jon Guy,

Just between you and me, Schwartz and James Brown's statements do not 'negate each other', in spite of what Lynn says. As for reasons to suspect Schwartz' s statements, there are the newspaper reports that say the police made arrests upon his statements, the men were freed, and the police questions the validity of his statements and would not make further arrests until they had reason to believe Schwartz. I personally think he was associated with the Berner Street club, and this is what gave them pause in believe him. However, a study of his actual statement gives us no real reason to disbelieve him, and the later comments from Abberline (following Swanson's Oct. 19th report), show that Abberline seems to have accepted Schwartz as honest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

a little plug of a post

Hi Maria. I wouldn't understand a word of your essay, I'm afraid.

Is that supposed to be false modesty or too bored to read it, lol?
Actually I think it's kinda cool, one of my best ones, tons of politics in the discussion, including lots about the dirty deeds of the Catholic church during the unification of Italy. I kinda think you might like it, since you liked my Cortès one.

Back on subject, I too don't see Schwartz' and James Brown's statements “negating each other“ at all, if fact I see them complementing each other perfectly, plus, even after 2 years of Ripperology, I'm amazed at how circular and repetitive these Stride threads get.

[lynn cates]

Brown

Hello David. Thanks. If it helps, I think Brown mistaken.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

time

Hello Tom. If Schwartz is correct, where's Brown? If Brown is correct, where's Schwartz? Seems rather like Long and Cadosch--at least one has the wrong time.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

complement

Hello Maria.

"I see them complementing each other perfectly"

Perhaps you can explain how they do not contradict, let alone complement, one another?

Cheers.
LC

[Garza]

We might assume that if she was unconscious she should have dropped the cachous. Alternately, we might also assume that if she was conscious she would have resisted the attack, thereby dropping the cachous.

One of these assumptions is wrong.

Regards, Jon S.

Strangulation can cause the victims hands to tighten into a fist, causing a grip.

Regarding the cachous, it can only be logically concluded she was strangled or the killer placed them there puroposefully after the murder.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom. If Schwartz is correct, where's Brown? If Brown is correct, where's Schwartz? Seems rather like Long and Cadosch--at least one has the wrong time.

I wouldn't be surprised if BOTH men were off on their timing, but that of course does not mean that both weren't otherwise accurate in their evidence. I personally think the Brown incident occurred just before the Schwartz incident. As little as one or two minutes may have separated the events, if we suppose for a moment that Brown's man was Pipeman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garza]

I believe that the people who say that Stride is not a Ripper victim ignore the massive similarities and focus on a few differences (probably only one difference).

If Liz Stride had a few gashes on her abdomen, the majority would blink an eye in calling her a Ripper victim.

The fact is that knife crime against women in Victorian England was quite rare, even in Whitechapel, take away the stabbings and you get a less number, take away non-prostitute knife crimes and you get an even lesser number, take away throat cuts not down in a street - a lesser number, then take away again women who get their throat cut while standing up - a lesser number still.

Then calculate the odds of a rare crime being commited on two women, less than a mile apart, less than an hour apart, whom appear to be soliciting, who are killed on the street, with their throats cut while on the ground ( I cannot stress the last part enough - throats cuts on the street are not usually done while the victim is lying on the ground yet these were, as was Eddowes, Chapman and Nichols).

Think about it, if Liz had a few cuts on her abdomen, would be having this discussion?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Garza, you're absolutely correct, particularly in regard to the rarity of a successful one-slice throat cutting. The same researchers who try to argue against Stride as a Ripper victim have posted ad infinitum reports of women who got their throat cut in the LVP. MOST of these women survived the cut, and the overwhelming majority were domestic cases. When you boil them down to women killed in 1888, in London, in this manner, you're pretty much left with Stride and the other alleged Ripper victims. But people will want to believe the things they want to believe, and for their own reasons, so arguing is futile. Unfortunately, the fact remains that most posters who suggest Stride wasn't a Ripper victim are laboring under this thinking based on a complete misunderstanding of the evidence. Just recently, on this thread, someone said they read that Stride was killed with her own knife, which of course is supported by zero evidence, but is one of the many myths put forth over the years by those wanting to count her out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon G. Thanks.

"I am aware of plenty of Schwartz theorising but I can`t recall any reason to discount his witness statement, sorry."

Well, just for a start, if true, it negates Brown's story--and conversely. Moreover, it was not corroborated.

Hi Lynn.

It appears I am the only one who is not convinced Brown saw Stride, in my opinion Brown saw the other young couple that walked down & up Berner St. at that hour.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Regarding the cachous, it can only be logically concluded she was strangled or the killer placed them there puroposefully after the murder.

Thats the one option I have always resisted mentioning, too contrived but still, not impossible.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

under pressure

Hello Garza. If you include any pressure to the throat, then we are together here.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Tom. Thanks.

"I wouldn't be surprised if BOTH men were off on their timing . . ."

I can live with that.

". . . but that of course does not mean that both weren't otherwise accurate in their evidence."

Agreed again. But it does mean that an adjustment is needed--they cannot be accepted as is.

"I personally think the Brown incident occurred just before the Schwartz incident. As little as one or two minutes may have separated the events, if we suppose for a moment that Brown's man was Pipeman."

Well, I can certainly live with that too. What about the other couple supposedly out and about?

Cheers.
LC