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

[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

[lynn cates]

my mistake

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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

[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]

[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]

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]

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]

Why so defensive Michael.... why not just admit you were wrong.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Why so defensive Michael.... why not just admit you were wrong.

Phil

Im not defensive at all, Im offended at the tone of your posts...thought that was obvious enough.

Unless you have a undeniably accurate single source, some new and revelatory information concerning the historical documentation or some additional proof of your opinion that your source is the trusted one, the statement I made is well enough documented to match any objection you might post in the form of opinion Phil.

You cant even accept a draw, can you? Lucky for me I dont invest as heavily in others opinions as you do. It does answer a bit about your position on some of these cases.

I would suggest cancelling the parade Phil...and for the third time, set your ego aside about this matter and respect the rights of the person who started this thread. I dont care what you believe is the truth about the Alamo, so please...dont waste anymore of my time, your time, or anyone else's.

[Phil H]

I dont care what you believe is the truth about the Alamo, so please...dont waste anymore of my time, your time, or anyone else's.

Maybe, on that basis, accuracy in regard to Ripper-relasted facts is not important to you either? THAT is my point.

Enough

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe, on that basis, accuracy in regard to Ripper-relasted facts is not important to you either? THAT is my point.

Enough

Phil

Phil,

I will address a point that at least is Ripper related, ... if facts were the only things used by students I would be quite content. There would be no Canonical Group, no frivolous arguments to debate made solely on the premise that a particular fiend was involved despite the variances. No Suspects... in the strictest sense of the word,..and any that arise will be based on something more than merely someones opinion, modern or contemporary.

Ive never fought for a particular story Phil, Ive fought against one that is bereft of evidence and yet THE most widely accepted theory. A Serial madman.

I was unnecessarily rude yesterday to you, my apologies for that.

Regards

[Phil H]

Thank you Michael - that is very generous of you. I reciprocate.

Phil

[caz]

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

To add to this, Simon has repeatedly hinted at the authorities back in 1888 manipulating the murders for their own ends; letting the public believe in a lone killer when they knew there were several; knowing stuff about the ripper missives but not telling anyone - that kind of thing.

That would amount to conspiracy to mislead at best and to cover up the truth at worst, so it remains Simon's conspiracy theory until he provides the evidence to turn it into conspiracy fact.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

If you mean what kind of mistake the ripper could have made if he killed Stride, there are several possibilities, although he may not have made a mistake at all. Tom Westcott believes he may have set out that night to bag two victims, and never intended to hang around the first one long enough to mutilate her. Alternatively, Stride could have rejected his advances earlier that evening and he could have found her later outside the club, apparently offering her wares to the Jews there, and decided to punish her for it.

Another alternative is that he saw her for the first time at the club and wrongly supposed her to be soliciting, but found her unwilling to leave the premises with him or indeed unwilling to engage with him at all. Or he could have made the mistake of thinking he could mutilate her in the yard, but then realised he was likely to be interrupted at any second by a club member coming or going.

I'm sure there are other possibilties. One mistake I don't think he did make was to leave her for dead, unsure if he had inflicted a fatal wound. I do believe this was a man who had cut a human throat before and knew how to make a thorough job of it.

Love,

Caz
X