Sequence of comings & goings - Stride

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank goodness for a good dollop of your common sense, Al.

I'm only sorry Herlock has been wasting his time on this, only to have personal insults chucked at him merely for suggesting that witnesses couldn't be sure of the correct time in those days, and more often than not did not have an accurate clock or watch to consult. How could the average man or woman in the street be expected to know if the nearest clock kept good time, even if they thought to look at it while going about their business? Michael is never going to give an inch, and he's made it clear why over the years. His pet suspect for Nichols and Chapman could not have killed Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, and he has invested too much of his publicly stated position in that theory to change now, giving him no choice - unlike the rest of us - but to come up with a whole series [ironic, or what?] of unsupported theories, one after another, to explain how and why all other victims fell to separate killers, each with a different motive.

While it's legitimate and desirable to investigate each murder on an individual basis, just as the police in 1888 knew and rightly did, before seeking to connect one man to more than one murder, it is not fair, reasonable, logical or sensible in 2020 to find any and every excuse to rule out obvious similarities and potential connections, which the police and medical men took seriously at the time, and which have been taken seriously by a whole raft of researchers, historians, psychologists and criminologists ever since.

A frequent refrain is that because none of these crimes was solved, we should have abandoned the serial killer theory long ago, in favour of looking for a series of individual killers instead, which to my mind is arse about face. Individual murders were and are ten times easier to solve than those committed by a lone wolf with no known connection to the victim; no obvious motive connected with the victim; and no evident connection to the location. Back then, if there was nothing to link a killer to his victim once he was away on his toes, with no credible confession and nothing from the victim found in his possession, the case was almost bound to go cold and remain unsolved to this day. A lone wolf is the best explanation by a country mile for the fact that the murders were not solved at the time and almost certainly never will be. All the while theorists like Michael get no nearer than anyone else to the answers, using the same surviving evidence, they make the case for a lone wolf stronger. Whether this will ever dawn on them is another matter.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I didn’t know that Michael had a suspect for Nichols and Chapman? Who is it? This does explain a lot though if he needs a different killer for the murder of Stride. When someone can still say that the reason that Schwartz wasn’t called to give evidence was because the police placed no value in his testimony after we know that the Police put Schwartz description on the front page of the Police Gazette on 19th October then we’re seeing a blind eye being turned. On this fact alone the argument about his non-attendance should end as far as any talk of the police losing faith but on it goes. It does smack of a real need to discredit Schwartz and now we know why. Then we have 4 of the weakest witnesses that we could think of being promoted as proving that Stride was killed earlier than thought. Almost laughable, one of them (Eagle) actually said that he saw Stride at 1.00. Any reasonable person would dismiss him immediately but still he’s used? Why? Then Spooner....outside the pub until 1.00 - in Dutfield’s Yard at 12.35- and also there 5 minutes before Lamb. But of course Michael seizes on the obviously wrong 12.35. Then two other witnesses making estimates on times are treated as rock solid.

Not to mention the ludicrous and dishonest “absence of evidence” argument which still gets trotted out despite every poster seeing that it’s a non-starter. There’s not a single, solitary smidgeon of evidence for any kind of cover up yet we’ve seen two posters performing contortions to try and shoehorn one into place. One of them throwing two huge tantrums when challenged. This should be a lesson in not looking too hard for conspiracies because you’re bound to find one whether they exist or not.

Have a good Christmas Caz.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

So the killer couldn't possibly have been interrupted by anyone or anything, because a witness would have provided evidence of this, but a club member could have blown a whistle without a shred of evidence that anyone blew one before the PC did.

One rule for Michael, another rule for everyone else. He might be better off going into politics.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi,

In Michaels defence, it was really just a passing remark. I don't think he's relying on it to bolster his case.

The sequence of events gets fogged up by going off of stated times. If four witnesses are to be placed in the gateway about 20 mins prior to them raising the alarm, we should be able to do it regardless of stated times. But it doesn't work. The PC's beat, courting couples, club members walking folks home and returning. Fannys hooves. They all roughly add up until low and behold, Louis Diemschutz says he found the body. And he's the only one who used a clock. Even if he didn't, back tracking from Dr Blackwell will still create the same picture, we'd just be using a rough time for the discovery, around 1am (ish).

[caz]

That's interesting, Al!

Growing up in Yorkshire I was told that the expression "Cor, Blimey" derived from "God, blind me!"

I wonder if my parents made this up so they didn't have to explain the real meaning behind it to their innocent little girl!!!

Hi Ms Diddles,

Growing up in south west London, I too understood the expression came from "God, blind me!"

Probably even used it on occasion as a teenager, when teaching the kiddies at my old Sunday School, before concluding it was all utter bollocks.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As for the whistle, it was Michael Richards who suggested a club member blew a whistle earlier. Which could have happened, in theory, like as you say it could have been a member of the vigilance committee. But since we only have a PC stating a whistle blowing, it seems likely it was him.

So the killer couldn't possibly have been interrupted by anyone or anything, because a witness would have provided evidence of this, but a club member could have blown a whistle without a shred of evidence that anyone blew one before the PC did.

One rule for Michael, another rule for everyone else. He might be better off going into politics.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Herlock, I see that your obstinate behavior is based on a few things...you inability to rationally fill in missing blanks...like the fact that no inside the club witnesses or Fanny said specifically I looked at the clock on the wall, ....to argue that the club or Fanny didnt have access to one inside is just ridiculous. And your disregard for witnesses that could not in anyway further your personal beliefs about this murder,.. beliefs that began before even reading a sentence about this particular murder. Your just another fell who buys anything as long as its Ripper friendly. Even it seems when Ripping isnt present. Nor suggested. Even when your position isnt supported by any known evidence.

I dont have time to open your mind about this, you are too far down the rabbit hole now. Suggesting that all corroborating witnesses were outright incorrect by using non validated accounts to do so...thats too f***** up for me to deal with any longer. I will add that you should be somewhere where fantasy and naivete is more welcomed, but not here. Legitimate thinkers come here. Its obviously not for you.

Start a Liz wasnt Ripped and I know why thread...in pub talk.

Why so angry? Why such poor manners? You think you know why Stride wasn't mutilated, but you don't have a monopoly on the truth, and there will be more than two or three opinions on the subject. I have seen no other poster who claims to know why there was no mutilation - just various opinions on the possibilities, varying from a different killer to the same man, choosing not to stay at the scene for a number of possible reasons. Whoever he was, he danced to his own tune, and wasn't obliged to mutilate, or not mutilate, because it was expected of him.

Do you not even understand the concept of having a debate - even a heated one?

Love,

Mrs Merton
X

[caz]

The real irony is that the one provable timepiece is the one that's totally dismissed.

As FrankO attempted way back when, all we can do is try and put things into some kind of order, regardless of the specific times stated. The PC's whistle is a clear time stamp, it's a shared event. It's verifiable. It puts Spooner in a relevant place. Even if he swore blind it was definitely 12:35, that whistle settles the matter. Hanging on to his earlier time is pure folly.

For the discussion to have come down to stating as fact that all involved were going off of a single clock, that Fanny also had a clock, which was set to the same time, so only an idiot would suggest that the stated times were, at best, guesses, is a rather sorry level of debate. It's making facts fit the theory. Or, more accurately, it's making up facts to fit a theory. Like a whistleblowing club member. That's seriously on the table here? A PC says he blew his whistle, but since that spanners up the theory, just claim it could have been one of those pesky anarchists earlier. It could have been the Pied Piper, why not?

I'll give this one a miss.

Thank goodness for a good dollop of your common sense, Al.

I'm only sorry Herlock has been wasting his time on this, only to have personal insults chucked at him merely for suggesting that witnesses couldn't be sure of the correct time in those days, and more often than not did not have an accurate clock or watch to consult. How could the average man or woman in the street be expected to know if the nearest clock kept good time, even if they thought to look at it while going about their business? Michael is never going to give an inch, and he's made it clear why over the years. His pet suspect for Nichols and Chapman could not have killed Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, and he has invested too much of his publicly stated position in that theory to change now, giving him no choice - unlike the rest of us - but to come up with a whole series [ironic, or what?] of unsupported theories, one after another, to explain how and why all other victims fell to separate killers, each with a different motive.

While it's legitimate and desirable to investigate each murder on an individual basis, just as the police in 1888 knew and rightly did, before seeking to connect one man to more than one murder, it is not fair, reasonable, logical or sensible in 2020 to find any and every excuse to rule out obvious similarities and potential connections, which the police and medical men took seriously at the time, and which have been taken seriously by a whole raft of researchers, historians, psychologists and criminologists ever since.

A frequent refrain is that because none of these crimes was solved, we should have abandoned the serial killer theory long ago, in favour of looking for a series of individual killers instead, which to my mind is arse about face. Individual murders were and are ten times easier to solve than those committed by a lone wolf with no known connection to the victim; no obvious motive connected with the victim; and no evident connection to the location. Back then, if there was nothing to link a killer to his victim once he was away on his toes, with no credible confession and nothing from the victim found in his possession, the case was almost bound to go cold and remain unsolved to this day. A lone wolf is the best explanation by a country mile for the fact that the murders were not solved at the time and almost certainly never will be. All the while theorists like Michael get no nearer than anyone else to the answers, using the same surviving evidence, they make the case for a lone wolf stronger. Whether this will ever dawn on them is another matter.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

That's interesting, Al!

Growing up in Yorkshire I was told that the expression "Cor, Blimey" derived from "God, blind me!"

I wonder if my parents made this up so they didn't have to explain the real meaning behind it to their innocent little girl!!!

Nope, they didn't make it up. I was told this by my class teacher in junior school, and yes I was born & raised in Yorkshire too.

This teacher looked the spitting image of Doris Ewell from the Please Sir TV series of the 1970's, and just as cruel.
She would threaten us if she heard anyone say "cor blimey", - she would squint her eyes & pierce her lips and scream "do you really want to go blind?".
She was something else, many a time if she caught you talking in class she would throw the board eraser at you. Back then this was a block of wood (blackboard eraser), I can't see teachers getting away with stuff like that these days.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok. I admit it. I had to look that up. Good Lord. You Brits lead the world in expressions.

c.d.

Too f*@^#*g right we do

Its about all that we lead the world in these days though c.d.

Have to say the Aussies have some crackers though.

[c.d.]

No, not as such. By the time they'd figured out what "blimey" meant, the war was almost over, and the code breakers were trying to figure out what "tuning in to Radio Luxembourg" was...

Ok. I admit it. I had to look that up. Good Lord. You Brits lead the world in expressions.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

That's interesting, Al!

Growing up in Yorkshire I was told that the expression "Cor, Blimey" derived from "God, blind me!"

I wonder if my parents made this up so they didn't have to explain the real meaning behind it to their innocent little girl!!!

I'll let someone else point it out...

[DJA]

That's interesting, Al!

Growing up in Yorkshire I was told that the expression "Cor, Blimey" derived from "God, blind me!"

I wonder if my parents made this up so they didn't have to explain the real meaning behind it to their innocent little girl!!!

You are correct.

A version is in "A Child of the Jago",1896.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

And if we get any more off topic, Old Man Menges will be on our case....

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Wouldn't “blow me” have worried the censor? I think it would have made them “bally furious.”

No, not as such. By the time they'd figured out what "blimey" meant, the war was almost over, and the code breakers were trying to figure out what "tuning in to Radio Luxembourg" was...

[Ms Diddles]

"Blimey" dates back to the 'home front' period during WW2. Stronger expletives were strictly rationed for soldiers serving on the front lines, as such, the civilian population had to "mend and make do" with lesser expletives. "Blimey" itself being a corruption of "blow me", but not as in 'blow me down with a feather', but based on a cruder term introduced by US troops, thereby circumventing the strict obscenity rules at the time. One of those little gems that slipped under the censors radar.

That's interesting, Al!

Growing up in Yorkshire I was told that the expression "Cor, Blimey" derived from "God, blind me!"

I wonder if my parents made this up so they didn't have to explain the real meaning behind it to their innocent little girl!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Blimey" dates back to the 'home front' period during WW2. Stronger expletives were strictly rationed for soldiers serving on the front lines, as such, the civilian population had to "mend and make do" with lesser expletives. "Blimey" itself being a corruption of "blow me", but not as in 'blow me down with a feather', but based on a cruder term introduced by US troops, thereby circumventing the strict obscenity rules at the time. One of those little gems that slipped under the censors radar.

Wouldn't “blow me” have worried the censor? I think it would have made them “bally furious.”