6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[Michael W Richards]

Since this has zero to do with the thread topic and was only made a reference in passing, perhaps thats enough about the Alamo and who knows how much about it.

It has to do with the thread, because you used the "myth" of Crockett's fate as an analogy to the Ripper case when you wrote:

An example might be the assumptions made about David Crocketts last moments at the Alamo, which for more than 150 years was that he was killed in battle while defending the mission. A few years back a comprehensive review was done of all the known existing first hand accounts...Mexican, Texian, American, combatants and non-combatants, and guess what....it appears that weve all be wrong about what really happened. He was captured and executed...a simple end rather than the heroism myth. When we just trust the myth we accept all the truth and lies....I dont want to do that personally.[My underlining.]

In fact the position is the EXACT REVERSE of what you depicted it to be and thus the conclusion you draw is also incorrect. Other posters need to know that. I simply corrected your misapprehension.

I am not in the habit of competing as to "who knows how much about it". But you appeared to insist you were right, when you are not. End of story. As I commented in another thread, I sometimes wonder where you get your ideas from.

Cordially,

Phil

I could tell by your attitude earlier that you believe yourself to be the definitive word on the Alamo here,... but your assurances aside.. if you want to make it an issue my original post was as valid as is your conviction that your preferred version of the events is the accurate one. There are many eyewitness accounts that support exactly what I stated... he didnt die in a small chamber in the mission with a pile of 28 dead mexicans at his feet...(not knowing if thats the myth you choose to believe or not). So off the HH Phil. Being pretentious may be fine for Ripperology where little is known and much is assumed.

Presenting a version of a story to contradict a version that has been presented is very weak debating...and to conclude that yours is the correct one regardless...well, that has more to do with ego than anything else.

And as I said in deference to the thread author, it still has nothing to do with this thread specifically. You challenge my analogy?...ok fine, challenge duly noted. So is the fact that you chose to do so by offering someone elses opinion...and stating it is the truth. Hogwash.

Moving on...

Regards

[Phil H]

Since this has zero to do with the thread topic and was only made a reference in passing, perhaps thats enough about the Alamo and who knows how much about it.

It has to do with the thread, because you used the "myth" of Crockett's fate as an analogy to the Ripper case when you wrote:

An example might be the assumptions made about David Crocketts last moments at the Alamo, which for more than 150 years was that he was killed in battle while defending the mission. A few years back a comprehensive review was done of all the known existing first hand accounts...Mexican, Texian, American, combatants and non-combatants, and guess what....it appears that weve all be wrong about what really happened. He was captured and executed...a simple end rather than the heroism myth. When we just trust the myth we accept all the truth and lies....I dont want to do that personally.[My underlining.]

In fact the position is the EXACT REVERSE of what you depicted it to be and thus the conclusion you draw is also incorrect. Other posters need to know that. I simply corrected your misapprehension.

I am not in the habit of competing as to "who knows how much about it". But you appeared to insist you were right, when you are not. End of story. As I commented in another thread, I sometimes wonder where you get your ideas from.

Cordially,

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

[B]
Enjoyable though that movie was, I'm afraid i don't regard it as a valid research tool.

James Donovan's recent popular study of the Alamo includes in the notes his assessment of recent scholarship, and he dismisses Crockett's execution. See also "Sleuthing the Alamo" by James E Crisp.

Guidebooks, in my experience, are often out-of-date or pander to the populist appetite.

I stick by my summary of recent studies. Sorry.

Phil

I didnt suggest you use the movie as a research tool, neither did I say that my education in the Alamo event came from guidebooks. I used those references for you, since I didnt know how much you had read regarding the matter. Since this has zero to do with the thread topic and was only made a reference in passing, perhaps thats enough about the Alamo and who knows how much about it.

Best regards

[Phil H]

The accounts that I referred to Phil are from a book I bought in the immediate area of the Alamo, which Ive visited half a dozen times, and there are a few non-combatant interviews, including Bowies sister-in-law, that support a simple execution, not a firing squad. A version of that kind of execution is shown in the movie made of the Alamo a few years back.

Enjoyable though that movie was, I'm afraid i don't regard it as a valid research tool.

James Donovan's recent popular study of the Alamo includes in the notes his assessment of recent scholarship, and he dismisses Crockett's execution. See also "Sleuthing the Alamo" by James E Crisp.

Guidebooks, in my experience, are often out-of-date or pander to the populist appetite.

I stick by my summary of recent studies. Sorry.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Again you imply that others are not 'smart enough' to have your open mind and to embrace your new philosophies, which you claim to be reasonable and supported by the facts. What 'facts' support your opinion that the act of killing means nothing to someone who cuts into corpses apart from allowing him to do so?

Caz, for a minute stop being argumentative for its sake alone and read what I wrote...the existing physical evidence in the case of Liz Stride includes nothing that can support the conclusion that she was killed by a serial mutilator. Since youre so fond of serializing everything about these cases surely you recognize the most unusual facet of the killer of Polly and Annie.

Well at least 'it seems clear' is an improvement on 'I know', but where does this 'different knife' come from? You can't infer as much from the medical evidence, which doesn't rule out the same knife, but merely suggests it may have been a different one.


I really dont like to argue points that are established...read the materials, a different kind of blade is suggested in the case of Stride.

I really don't get this argument about knowledge versus assumption. How the devil is anyone meant to test or argue for either theory: a serial killer or multiple killers, without reference to and comparison with murderers from both categories? If you can't come up with any examples of cases that are comparable to the WM, which feature several unconnected killers, to support your own theory, you are in no position to complain when others are able to support theirs with copious examples of serial killers behaving badly in all too familiar sounding ways.

You seem to operate under a erroneous assumption....I have to prove nothing, the facts speak for themselves in Liz Stride case. It is YOU who has to prove...with facts and not mythology....that we have serial killings here, Ive just stated that the physical facts dont support that idea. Which they dont.

I harbor no ill will toward you but I do resent the position that anyone who claims there was no serial murders here has the burden of proof. It is the opposite actually. Since there is no physical proof know that they were serial killings I suppose that makes it a bit tricky.

You keep saying I believe I am smarter...which is not the case at all.....I do believe however that many people, yourself included, want to choose their answers rather than be led by the evidence to them.

Best regards

[Michael W Richards]

An example might be the assumptions made about David Crocketts last moments at the Alamo, which for more than 150 years was that he was killed in battle while defending the mission. A few years back a comprehensive review was done of all the known existing first hand accounts...Mexican, Texian, American, combatants and non-combatants, and guess what....it appears that weve all be wrong about what really happened. He was captured and executed...a simple end rather than the heroism myth. When we just trust the myth we accept all the truth and lies....

Just to point out that the current academic concensus appears to be that the "myth" was correct. De La Pena's account (involving Crockett's execution by firing squad) is not supported by other evidence. Thus, it is now widely accepted that crockett died in the fighting as was originally believed - and as is consistent with his character.

I have just been researching the subject, so my comments confidently reflect the most recent writing on the subject.

Phil

The accounts that I referred to Phil are from a book I bought in the immediate area of the Alamo, which Ive visited half a dozen times, and there are a few non-combatant interviews, including Bowies sister-in-law, that support a simple execution, not a firing squad. A version of that kind of execution is shown in the movie made of the Alamo a few years back.

Ill see if I can get to my storage locker this week where I keep many of my books..... since youre obviously interested.

As I said...myths often die hard.

Cheers Phil

[lynn cates]

my mistake

Hello Caroline. What kind of mistake did you have in mind?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Simon

Not everyone. But when one involves Scotland Yard, Sinn Fein, The Ochrana, Russian anarchists, The Whitechapel Vigilance Commitee, mad Swiss pork butchers , Pontius Kak internationally renowned nose flautist, The lads form the dodgy tobacco shop in Cleveland Street, the one and only Billy Spears, I'll stop there,I think you'll get my meaning, conspiracy theory comes to mind. Wouldn't you agree?

Regards

Observer

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Why is it that anyone who strays from a strict belief in the mainstream version of the Whitechapel murders is invariably branded a conspiracy theorist?

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Hi Caz,

My intention wasnt to insult but rather extend credit based on the many thoughtful and insightful posts Ive seen by members here over the years. My belief is that some people are smart enough to at times see beyond their own limitations and preconceptions and with open minds embrace new philosophies when they are reasonable and supported by facts.

Again you imply that others are not 'smart enough' to have your open mind and to embrace your new philosophies, which you claim to be reasonable and supported by the facts. What 'facts' support your opinion that the act of killing means nothing to someone who cuts into corpses apart from allowing him to do so?

I think in the case of Liz Stride a suggestion that she was simply killed by some criminal is what the evidence itself suggests Caz...the "gaps" are only present if you insist of pinning this murder to the previous victims killer. Missing mutilation intention, missing second throat cut, different knife, lack of interruption evidence,...those are the gaps. Her dead body is about all we have to go by here and by that data it seems clear that she was not killed by the man that killed Annie.

Well at least 'it seems clear' is an improvement on 'I know', but where does this 'different knife' come from? You can't infer as much from the medical evidence, which doesn't rule out the same knife, but merely suggests it may have been a different one.

To cd, I didnt say that people shouldnt review old murders while utilizing data collected in modern times, I said that serial killer data should only be useful when you KNOW that the older crimes were committed by one serial murderer. In the case of the Canonical Five, we do not KNOW that...its is assumed.

I really don't get this argument about knowledge versus assumption. How the devil is anyone meant to test or argue for either theory: a serial killer or multiple killers, without reference to and comparison with murderers from both categories? If you can't come up with any examples of cases that are comparable to the WM, which feature several unconnected killers, to support your own theory, you are in no position to complain when others are able to support theirs with copious examples of serial killers behaving badly in all too familiar sounding ways.

Comparison with known examples is the only way to test either theory and try to disprove it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

An example might be the assumptions made about David Crocketts last moments at the Alamo, which for more than 150 years was that he was killed in battle while defending the mission. A few years back a comprehensive review was done of all the known existing first hand accounts...Mexican, Texian, American, combatants and non-combatants, and guess what....it appears that weve all be wrong about what really happened. He was captured and executed...a simple end rather than the heroism myth. When we just trust the myth we accept all the truth and lies....

Just to point out that the current academic concensus appears to be that the "myth" was correct. De La Pena's account (involving Crockett's execution by firing squad) is not supported by other evidence. Thus, it is now widely accepted that crockett died in the fighting as was originally believed - and as is consistent with his character.

I have just been researching the subject, so my comments confidently reflect the most recent writing on the subject.

Phil

[caz]

Hi all,

I would expect cd that Lynn is actually asking if the killer found that he could not mutilate Liz, then why would he kill her? If your hypothesis is, and in a fashion, Caz's,.... that the man that killed Liz was "picking her up".... just as the women who were murdered previously met their killer,... then until he is ready to kill and cut immediately afterward into the dead or dying women he is merely a supposed client with a hidden weapon.

So....if he cannot mutilate Liz where she was found, that means his knife is still in his pocket or on his belt at that point. So....again...why would he still kill her? There is no threat from a woman who has a client both on her at the last minute.

There is ample evidence from the C1 and C2 murders that the killer of those women murdered them so he could cut into them. He didnt kill for kicks, or kill for the sake of taking a life or watching life drain from someone...he cut their throats twice so they bled out fast which kept his primary work less messy,...the cutting into and taking of materials from the abdomen.

Now we are to believe the man will just kill with a single swipe while the victim is still standing......... without any threat or potential risk if he had just left her alive instead.

The man is called The Ripper based on what he did in the C1 and C2 murders....so why in heavens name would you or Caz or anyone suggest that that man wasnt actually a Ripper at all? Just a killer......

In the herculean efforts to mystify this series that idea is one of the least tenable and most objectionable . Yeah...hes a serial killer mutilating Ripper....but also he's just a simple killer at heart....he must have been, because he also kills Liz without any fanfare or objective other than merely causing death!!

Best regards

Hi Mike,

I find this kind of reasoning bizarre in the extreme. It is based on all sorts of dubious supposition and guesswork about the motivations and human foibles of a serial mutilator you don't even believe existed! You believe that one man mutilated Nichols and Chapman; another mutilated only Eddowes; another mutilated only Kelly; and another felt the need to murder Stride with the knife in his possession for reasons that would be completely unknowable. So did all your mutilators only commit murder for the sole purpose of performing their mutilations? Or could there have been more to it than that in one or more of the cases?

You seem to be suggesting that your mutilator would have been equally keen to cut into the corpse of someone who had just died from natural causes, or met with a fatal accident, because you are saying that murdering the intended victim was merely a necessary means of obtaining his raw materials. I cannot begin to fathom how you can claim to know this, or to speak for such a man. What informs your view that overpowering and killing a woman played no psychological part in this individual's overall experience, but only a practical one? Because if the man who mutilates when given half a chance gets anything at all out of the act of controlling - possibly manhandling - his victim and slicing into her neck, there would be ample motivation right there for killing Stride, even while appreciating that the club was no place to be fannying around inside one of his fresh corpses. He could have figured that the thrill of the kill was better than no thrill at all.

Would you ask why a dirty old man would still grope young girls in a crowd when there is no chance of him completing a sex act with any of them?

Would you ask why a teenage boy would still lust after women he can never have? You'd be asking the same question of him when he's eighty-six.

If you believe a thwarted serial mutilator would have all the patience and forbearing of a saint and simply walk away from an intended victim if she resisted his charms or the circumstances were too risky, I can only wonder who you think did kill Stride and what she could have done to provoke your unknown quantity into putting the knife in.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I suppose you know just how patronising and condescending that comes across? It comes across as: "I respect some members enough to assume they will eventually see the light if I keep flashing my torch in their eyes".

Do you also know just how much guesswork and supposition you needed to fill the gaps in the evidence and to presume to 'know' that Stride was killed by someone else?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

My intention wasnt to insult but rather extend credit based on the many thoughtful and insightful posts Ive seen by members here over the years. My belief is that some people are smart enough to at times see beyond their own limitations and preconceptions and with open minds embrace new philosophies when they are reasonable and supported by facts. An example might be the assumptions made about David Crocketts last moments at the Alamo, which for more than 150 years was that he was killed in battle while defending the mission. A few years back a comprehensive review was done of all the known existing first hand accounts...Mexican, Texian, American, combatants and non-combatants, and guess what....it appears that weve all be wrong about what really happened. He was captured and executed...a simple end rather than the heroism myth. When we just trust the myth we accept all the truth and lies....I dont want to do that personally.

I think in the case of Liz Stride a suggestion that she was simply killed by some criminal is what the evidence itself suggests Caz...the "gaps" are only present if you insist of pinning this murder to the previous victims killer. Missing mutilation intention, missing second throat cut, different knife, lack of interruption evidence,...those are the gaps. Her dead body is about all we have to go by here and by that data it seems clear that she was not killed by the man that killed Annie.

To cd, I didnt say that people shouldnt review old murders while utilizing data collected in modern times, I said that serial killer data should only be useful when you KNOW that the older crimes were committed by one serial murderer. In the case of the Canonical Five, we do not KNOW that...its is assumed.

All the best

[caz]

To Colin.....for myself mate I need nothing other than the existing evidence to know that Liz Stride wasnt killed by the same man that killed Annie Chapman before her, but that Polly was likely killed by the man that kills Annie next...

...Why I continue to argue points here....why Liz was there, what she was doing there, where did her money go....is because I respect some of the members enough to assume that many others could also share my opinion of Liz if they used only the evidence itself and stayed away from the guesswork and supposition needed to include a Ripper in this murder.

Hi Mike,

I suppose you know just how patronising and condescending that comes across? It comes across as: "I respect some members enough to assume they will eventually see the light if I keep flashing my torch in their eyes".

Do you also know just how much guesswork and supposition you needed to fill the gaps in the evidence and to presume to 'know' that Stride was killed by someone else?

Love,

Caz
X

[curious4]

Liz

Phillips seemed inclined along those lines, if we are not taking his observation out of context.
The Coroner asked him:

[Coroner] Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case?

Phillips: - There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones.

Phillips adds that a short blade would have sufficed, unlike the 6-8 inch blade referred to in the Chapman case.

Does Phillips think Stride was not killed by the same hand as Chapman?

We already know he had doubts about Eddowes being by the same hand as Chapman.

Does Phillips think this short blade could have been used to mutilate Eddowes? - probably not.

What is the implication of Phillips's words concerning Chapman, Stride & Eddowes, are there three hands at work, in his mind?

.

Hello Wickerman,

It seems to me that there is a tendency to misinterpret Phillips' comments. He was speaking from a medical point of view, not as a crime scene officer, and from a medical point of view there was a great difference between Chapman's body and that of Liz Stride.

I sometimes think that if Liz were to jump out of her grave and yell "Jack dunnit!", a number of people would immediately say "Prove it!"

Best wishes,

C4