Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn’t fully quote what Lave said.

. he claimed that he had gone into Dutfield's Yard at 12.40am to get a breath of fresh air: "So far as I could see I was out in the street about half an hour, and while I was out nobody came into the yard, nor did I see anybody moving about there in a way to excite my suspicions

Which means that he saw nothing at 1.10 when the yard was full of people. So he was very obviously unreliable as to time.

Morris Eagle said that....

.. He returned at 12.35am a

Yet Michael says......

. Eagle being accurate when he and Lave state that they were in the same place at the same time and didnt see each other

How is 12.35 and 12.40 the same time? So the provably unreliable Levy is used to make the point that he should have seen a man who returned to the club 5 minutes before he went into the yard? Work that one out.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And I’d also mention those other ‘fringe theorists’ Philip Sugden and Paul Begg.

If guys like Sudgen and Begg had the temerity to challenge mainstream views, they might end up being 'fringe writers'.
At least, that would be the case if people like you were their target audience.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who also believes that Richardson, Cadosch and Long were all mistaken or lying and yet resists the temptation of weaving a conspiracy around it.

Who also cannot resist the temptation of erecting strawmen when attempting to undermine any opposition to their weak arguments, and believes this is a valid method of debate?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If guys like Sudgen and Begg had the temerity to challenge mainstream views, they might end up being 'fringe writers'.
At least, that would be the case if people like you were their target audience.

I think that your comment speaks volumes. I think that there’s a desire in some quarters just to disagree because the idea of holding what you call “a mainstream opinion” is a sign of poor thinking or even stupidity. A wish to be different just for the sake of standing out. This is why we get conspiracy theory thinking. Getting excited when we find a discrepancy or error then attempting to weave a scenario around it.

Can you, hand on heart, say that the statements of witnesses like Lave, Eagle, Kozebrodski and Hoschberg are genuine evidence of a cover up? Eagle said he saw the body ar 1.00. Lave said that the yard was empty up until around 1.00. Hoschberg said “around 12.45 I should think,” but talks about a hearing a police whistle which we know occurred later. And Kozebrodski said “about 12.45.” Then, if we add Spooner who is also cited. He says in one breath 12.35, then in another he’s talking to a woman for 25 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 (whatever this equates to but I’m guessing it’s close to 1.00) then he says that he arrived 5 minutes before PC Lamb. Can we honestly think of 4 less reliable sounding witness when it comes to timings? Or are these statements more ‘forgivable’ when we consider that they were thinking back over extraordinary circumstances. Where excitement and a bit of panic set in and where the men speaking wouldn't in all likelihood have owned watches or had any reason to have attempted to log times of there was a clock around? These are just errors. No more no less. And the poorest ground to build a theory on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who also cannot resist the temptation of erecting strawmen when attempting to undermine any opposition to their weak arguments, and believes this is a valid method of debate?

Few posters will have spent more time disagreeing with Fish than me but I’m not aware of him using any straw man arguments? Just a difference of opinion. I will say that I’ve never heard Fish say that other posters are on his level though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Few posters will have spent more time disagreeing with Fish than me but I’m not aware of him using any straw man arguments? Just a difference of opinion. I will say that I’ve never heard Fish say that other posters are on his level though.

“...are on his level,” should read “...aren’t on his level.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that your comment speaks volumes. I think that there’s a desire in some quarters just to disagree because the idea of holding what you call “a mainstream opinion” is a sign of poor thinking or even stupidity. A wish to be different just for the sake of standing out. This is why we get conspiracy theory thinking. Getting excited when we find a discrepancy or error then attempting to weave a scenario around it.

Can you, hand on heart, say that the statements of witnesses like Lave, Eagle, Kozebrodski and Hoschberg are genuine evidence of a cover up? Eagle said he saw the body ar 1.00. Lave said that the yard was empty up until around 1.00. Hoschberg said “around 12.45 I should think,” but talks about a hearing a police whistle which we know occurred later. And Kozebrodski said “about 12.45.” Then, if we add Spooner who is also cited. He says in one breath 12.35, then in another he’s talking to a woman for 25 minutes between 12.30 and 1.00 (whatever this equates to but I’m guessing it’s close to 1.00) then he says that he arrived 5 minutes before PC Lamb. Can we honestly think of 4 less reliable sounding witness when it comes to timings? Or are these statements more ‘forgivable’ when we consider that they were thinking back over extraordinary circumstances. Where excitement and a bit of panic set in and where the men speaking wouldn't in all likelihood have owned watches or had any reason to have attempted to log times of there was a clock around? These are just errors. No more no less. And the poorest ground to build a theory on.

”Lave said that the yard was empty up until around 1.00,” should read “....around 1.10.”

[caz]

I think there's a fair few books that suggest otherwise.

Incidentally, there's a new one out soon, by some Swedish journalist. Available in the new year from all good book retailers!

I do wonder how this discussion would have looked if the man who killed Nichols had had to scarper immediately after cutting her throat because of approaching footsteps [Cross's footsteps, if the killer was not Cross; Paul's, if the killer was Cross - the timings only had to be very slightly altered]. Nichols would then have been 'a victim unripped', and therefore not a ripper victim, according to Michael's logic. It could have happened that way so easily.

And talking of Cross, I'd imagine a man with a sharp knife, who sought to overpower and mutilate his female victims, could become very cross indeed if the conditions were against him, and would have had no hesitation in taking out his considerable anger on the woman, swiftly and silently, before scarpering.

Alternatively, the kill itself could have been a big part of the thrill for him. Who says it wasn't? Would he have mutilated a woman he found already lying senseless or dead on the street, for instance? I don't think even Michael could have the answer to that one. If there was a sexual element to the murders, the killer could have got off on the considerable risks he took each time of someone coming along at any time, making mutilation a bonus when his luck held. The excitement gained from simply overpowering and cutting a victim's throat, virtually under the noses of potential witnesses, could have compensated in some small way for not being able to hang around after the initial buzz to finish what he started.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If that is the criterion that you insist on using then in accordance with the laws of logic Stride absolutely could not have been a Ripper victim. But that begs the question why do you insist on using that criterion? To me, it seems extremely simplistic and smacks of very shoddy detective work. Shouldn't the next question be could there be anything which prevented mutilation and then try to determine what that could have been and then decide how plausible that reason is?

You are certainly free to use any criterion that you want but insisting that that criterion be met before Stride can be considered a Ripper victim seems to be very agenda driven.

c.d.

The thing is, the man known as The Yorkshire Ripper left virtually all his victims unripped, which shows that the problem lies in the moniker used, and not in the enigmatic variations of any individual killer's behaviour.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If she was outside, listening to the music from her doorstep for more than a minute or two, is there any reason why she would not have pulled the front door to, to keep the draught and the music from disturbing her old man?

"Close the door behind you, woman. I don't want to hear that ruddy din while I'm freezing me nuts off in here, thanks very much."

A few reasons, actually.

A close-up of some of the addresses along Berner street, suggests there was probably little in the way of a step.
Although the bottom of the doorway of #36 is just out of shot, other doorways suggest she did not have a doorstep similar to the middle step at the back of 29 Hanbury street.

She doesn't say anything about a step...

I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock this Sunday morning, and did not notice anything unusual.

Closing the door behind her would put her at the mercy of tipsy men with broad shoulders.

An alternative would have been to close the bedroom door.

Fanny at her door

[caz]

Okay pedantic Polly, let's scrub the doorstep [ha ha] and have Fanny standing on the pavement right outside her front door, looking outwards and able to see along Berner Street - or what was the point? Is that all right with you?

So which side of the door was she? And why would that door need to be open, or even ajar, in either case? I simply can't see her husband being happy if she regularly spent up to thirty minutes after midnight with her eyes and ears on what might be going on in the street, with the front door open, letting the heat out and the weather in, and any noise from the club.

Reminds me of something my dad used to say about cats.

Q: What side of a door does a cat want to be?

A: The other side.

[Michael W Richards]

Still contrary just for the sake of it huh?

When people believe that the evidence must reflect their personal belief that a serial mutilator cut Liz once and didnt show any interest in mutilation at all, they will make any excuse to discard the real for the imagined.

So which side of the door was she? And why would that door need to be open, or even ajar, in either case? I simply can't see her husband being happy if she regularly spent up to thirty minutes after midnight with her eyes and ears on what might be going on in the street, with the front door open, letting the heat out and the weather in, and any noise from the club.

Why would she ever close her door, the fresh night air might have been delightful, and since she is there "nearly the whole friggin time" between 12:30 and 1, thats a lot of opening and closing the door since she was at it "off and on." She commented about what she regularly heard from that club. And what she heard from the street. She comments about the street in front of the gates during that last half hour. Why are you so intent on discrediting the ONLY Inquest witness to the street in front of the club from 12:35 until 1. Oh yeah,... The ghoulish Ripper had to have slipped past her, and everyone else,... and been startled and scared off by Louis arriving at 1. (Which he provably didnt.) Why...because there is only 1 throat slitter in London in the Fall of 1888 and an Anarchist certainly wouldnt ever be violent, and no mutilation doesnt mean that he didnt want to,... even if there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, NOT ONE SHRED OF ONE, that he did want to.

Is this how you want to make your stand Caz,......really? This is your assessment of this event? Use the non-validated statements and some imaginative explanations to counter multiple statements that are corroborated, and an eye witness statement, and a statement from 2 sources that state only the young couple was seen on that street until Goldstein passed. (One additional point....on what grounds can you establish the man who came in with a translator on Sunday, or Tuesday night with Wess, are whom they claim to be. This could easily be a case of Hutchinsonia...someone merely claiming to be someone else seen on a particular night)?

Not only is this a rare after meeting period ...with no-one in the passageway smoking and chatting despite the fact Fanny hears rows from that passage after 1am often, ...with a slippery Ghoul who manages to arrive without anyone seeing him,... cuts just once and gently lays his victim down on her side,.... then is spooked by the cart and horse which didnt arrive at 1,... and leaves without anyone seeing him...just as Fanny has gone indoors?

This all reminds me of storytelling.
Maybe not so appropriate for serious study though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Still contrary just for the sake of it huh?

When people believe that the evidence must reflect their personal belief that a serial mutilator cut Liz once and didnt show any interest in mutilation at all, they will make any excuse to discard the real for the imagined.



This all reminds me of storytelling.
Maybe not so appropriate for serious study though.

Is this accusation any different from that of someone who might suggest that you have a personal belief that the killer came from within the club and that you have been doing anything that you can to keep it alive? Like your endless repeating of the ‘absence of evidence’ thing which everyone on legs can see is an utter non-starter perhaps? Or you’re constantly claim that witnesses who are guessing about times must be taken as gospel especially when one of them is only out by 5 minutes tops and another who can be dismissed without a second thought? Or your constant quoting of what Mortimer said in one report but your convenient omitting of what she said in another? This is called shoehorning. Serious study shouldn’t require this.

So we have Schwartz absence from the Inquest - we can’t say for certain why but it can’t have been because the police dismissed him because we have it from several sources in print that they hadn’t and that he continued to be mentioned well after the Inquest and at least into November.

We have Mortimer in the EN showing that it was more than likely that she was inside when Schwartz past.

And 4 witnesses. One can be dismissed as categorically mistaken. One can be dismissed as he only said that he saw the body a mere 5 minutes before he actually had. And two who used words like ‘about’ and ‘I should think’ when talking times showing that they hadn’t consulted a clock, if one was available, and were simply mistaken.

And on those three shaky props you have built a scenario which you defend to the point of insulting and dismissing everyone that disagrees or questions you.

[Michael W Richards]

None of my witnesses "guessed" the times, they all...but Spooner, came from inside buildings. And they gave times which they felt were correct...of which 4 matched. And the witness at her door from 12:50 until 1 essentially confirms that no-one came or went from 12:50 until just 1am.None can be categorically dismissed..maybe by you and Caz but not by anyone serious about conducting an investigation. Your absolute arrogance and dismissve comments about someone that is using evidence and not making excuses for anything that contradicts an interrupted serial mutilator premise isnt just a disappointment anymore, its a f****** bore. And patently false. And historically innacurate. I still say you folks should start a fictional Casebook, where your pretend stories and dismissal of evidence would be welcomed. You can have your own fiction madman and argue with anything that contradicts you. Because it would be in a fictional setting. This isnt that. Putting your bs here is an insult to anyone looking for truth.

YOU WANT the mutilator so you challenge 4 corroborated statements. YOU WANT to buy Schwartz despite the fact that he very obviously was not believed officially, YOU WANT to smooth over anything that remotely suggests that no outside person came into that yard to kill Liz, and you want to portray me as the one manipulating rthe evidence. Youve tossed evidence aside for your own arguments...sad, and unfortunately, predictable. Just not factual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

None of my witnesses "guessed" the times, they all...but Spooner, came from inside buildings. And they gave times which they felt were correct...of which 4 matched. And the witness at her door from 12:50 until 1 essentially confirms that no-one came or went from 12:50 until just 1am.None can be categorically dismissed..maybe by you and Caz but not by anyone serious about conducting an investigation. Your absolute arrogance and dismissve comments about someone that is using evidence and not making excuses for anything that contradicts an interrupted serial mutilator premise isnt just a disappointment anymore, its a f****** bore. And patently false. And historically innacurate. I still say you folks should start a fictional Casebook, where your pretend stories and dismissal of evidence would be welcomed. You can have your own fiction madman and argue with anything that contradicts you. Because it would be in a fictional setting. This isnt that. Putting your bs here is an insult to anyone looking for truth.

YOU WANT the mutilator so you challenge 4 corroborated statements. YOU WANT to buy Schwartz despite the fact that he very obviously was not believed officially, YOU WANT to smooth over anything that remotely suggests that no outside person came into that yard to kill Liz, and you want to portray me as the one manipulating rthe evidence. Youve tossed evidence aside for your own arguments...sad, and unfortunately, predictable. Just not factual.

Try reading instead of ranting Michael. Take off the conspiracy goggles.

Spooners time WASNT correct. He said that he arrived in the yard 5 minutes before Lamb. How is that correct? On Planet Cover-Up maybe but not on Earth. Spooner is dismissed out of his own mouth.

Eagle saw the body at 1.00 - dismissed.

Hoschberg and Kozebrodski were guessing the time. The words ‘about’ and ‘I should say’ kinda give that away Michael.

These are your witnesses. Your props.

And as for Schwartz....for Christ’s sake can you read???

Abberline, Swanson, Anderson and Warren. Remember them? I think that they were......police In black and white Michael. Still treating Schwartz as a valued witness into November. Over a month after the Inquest!!!

You are hopelessly and irrevocably biased on this issue Michael. Everyone can see this.