Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Many Victims Were There?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Hello Trevor,

    How is time and location in any way relevant? It only indicates a difference from other murders. Is there any reason to think that Jack operated on a strict timetable that couldn't be changed or that there were geographic barriers that he was unable or unwilling to cross?

    c.d.
    Well look at the times of the other murders and compare them to Stride, and factor in all the other differences between her murder and all the others.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Both killed using different knives
    Stride killed out of time with all the other victims
    Stride no body wounds
    Stride killed almost on a main street
    Stride the only victim killed south of The Whitechapel road
    Stride killed when the public were still moving about and club members were in an out of the club.
    There are enough differences that it is possible that Stride was not killed by the Ripper, but your list is deeply flawed.

    Feel free to provide evidence that Stride and Eddowes were killed with different knives.

    Stride was not "killed out of time with all the other victims". The opposite is true - the smallest difference in time of night is between the murders of Stride and Eddowes.

    Stride was not killed "almost on a main street", she was killed in Dutfield's Yard.

    One element being different about the location does not exclude that victim from being killed by the Ripper. Stride was killed farther south than any other victim. Nichols was killed farther east than any other victim. Chapman was killed farther north than any other victim. Eddowes was killed farther west than any other victim. kelly was the only victim killed indoors.

    Dutfield's Yard did see more traffic than the other murder sites. That could mean a different killer or the same killer interrupted.

    Stride's body was not mutilated. That could mean a different killer or the same killer interrupted.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    I would say seven victims the C5 plus Tabram and Ellen Bury as the seventh victim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Just looking back over these last few weeks of debate/argument over the Stride murder it’s clear that it’s impossible to argue against an agenda and it’s futile to get annoyed at someone who refuses to debate using reason. It’s a trial though to avoid being frustrated at constantly banging your head against a brick wall of bias. By refusing to accept or acknowledge even the most basic reasoning absolutely anything can be made to fit a theory. There’s nothing wrong with a theory of course unless the proposer simply can’t cope with it being challenged, which is the case hear of course. Then we get all manner of selective quoting, biased assessment of witnesses and outright manipulations. Then of course the people that question the theory get accused of doing exactly what the proposer has been doing all along.

    I have never once said that Stride must have been a ripper victim. I’ve acknowledged doubt several times on here so how is it that I (and others) get accused of being somehow desperate to add to the ripper’s tally? Where is there a grain of reason in this? How can someone say “I accept that Stride might not have been a ripper victim” only to be accused of actively and dishonestly trying to prove that she was. As they say in the USA “go figure.”

    Its also a fact that I’ve never once said that Stride’s killer was definitely interrupted only that it’s a reasonable possibility. Again, combine this with the fact that I’ve acknowledged that she might not have been a ripper victim, and can anyone explain why Michael persists in this nonsense that I’m in any way committed to Stride as a ripper victim? It’s preposterous. None of us know this for certain but it takes a committed theorist to persist in claiming that they know something than can only be speculated upon. That Stride’s killer might have interrupted is a fact. He might have been.

    But taking a reasoned approach isn’t a part of the methodology of some theorists. Ego takes over. They cannot be wrong. Everything they say should be agreed with. Personally, I’m way past tired of this approach. When even the most straightforward, uncontroversial piece of reasoning is attacked with logic that would embarrass a child. Michael has spent the last few weeks defending a theory that he’s proposed for years. A theory that no one else accepts and yet he manages to respond to those that disagree as if they are the one’s on the fringe. As if they are the one’s with the wacky ideas. He’s repeatedly used a piece witness testimony that doesn’t exist (pointed out in detail by David Orsam) He’s quoted a witness (Morris Eagle) who’s statement is the opposite of what Michael’s theory contends. He’s selectively quoted Fanny Mortimer to suit. Completely ignoring when she said something that didn’t suit. He’s fixated on estimated times and denied the fact that most working class people didn’t own watches. He’s latched on to Spooner’s very shaky estimated arrival time and yet he’s completely ignores when his statement shows that he arrived at the yard around 1.00. Round and round we go and he’s STILL quoting a non-existent statement. He’s still quoting Eagle as supporting his cause even though he said (using words...in black and white) that he first saw the body at around 1.00.

    How can you hope to play on a field including non-existent players, shifting rules that favour one side and forever moving goalposts? Trying to debate reasonably and fairly is utterly impossible. A tiring, frustrating waste of time. It’s also sad that someone will constantly stoop to these levels.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Hi Caz
    The only comparison between the murder of Stride and Eddowes is that they both occurred on the same night!
    That is not the only comparison between the Stride and Eddowes murders. Both victims were prostitutes. Both appear to have been killed by a stranger. Both had their throats cut. In both cases, the murderer escaped undetected. The only significant difference is that Stride was not mutilated, which could be explained by the killer being interrupted by Lewis Diemshutz' arrival.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    I believe that there is enough evidence to make some fundamental conclusions to the question of How Stride dies and one is that she is killed by someone from that property who wanted only to cut her once. There is no credible witness that sees anyone in that street near the gates from 12:35 until 12:55-56 when someone passes by. No-one is seen from that time on until after 1, by neither the young couple or Fanny Mortimer. The physical evidence is self explanatory, a single cut, drawn across the throat, with the intent of inflicting a mortal injury.
    If "no credible witness that sees anyone in that street near the gates from 12:35 until 12:55-56", then

    1) Louis Diemschitz could not have arrived at the 12:45 time you insist on, he must have arrived at 12:55 or later. Which leaves only a couple minutes for the supposed conspirators to come up with their useless conspiracy.
    2) Elizabeth Stride was not on the street "between 12:35 and 12:55", so she must have entered Dutfield's Yard at 12:35, probably with her killer.
    3) Morris Eagle was lying when he said he entered Dutfield's Yard from the street at 12:40.
    4) James Brown, who was neither Jewish nor an anarchist, was lying when he said he saw Stride on the street at 12:45.
    5) Israel Schwartz was lying when he said he saw Stride on the street at 12:45.

    The idea that "no credible witness that sees anyone in that street near the gates from 12:35 until 12:55-56" is based on a false assumption about Fanny Mortimer's statement. What she actually said was "I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o’clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual." and "I only noticed one person passing, just before I turned in. That was a young man walking up Berner-street, carrying a black bag in his hand." who she thought "might have been coming from the Socialist Club". He later was found to be Leon Goldstein.

    Your conclusion, that "she is killed by someone from that property", is not supported by the evidence. The Inquest shows that in addition to Dutfield's Yard leading to the International Working Men's Education Society, it also led to "a house, which is divided into three tenements" and "a store or workshop belonging to Messrs. Hindley and Co., sack manufacturers".

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    No it doesn't mean that.

    Try and return from Fantasy Island. Go ask an adult.

    Pathetic

    whats so crazy is that the schwartz evidence is actually evidence of an interuption.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Careful there boys. Somebody is going to get their behind banned from these boards.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Saying something stupid over and over again wont make it suddenly plausible. NO SIGN OF ANY INTERRUPTION MEANS THERE IS LITTLE OR NO CHANCE ONE HAPPENED. And you keep wasting time on the 1% chance. My time. Everyones time. Tell you what. Find some evidence or shut up.
    No it doesn't mean that.

    Try and return from Fantasy Island. Go ask an adult.

    Pathetic


    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The fact that interruption was possible shouldn’t even be up for question. Anyone that says it’s not possible is simply and very obvious wrong (probably due to bias)
    Saying something stupid over and over again wont make it suddenly plausible. NO SIGN OF ANY INTERRUPTION MEANS THERE IS LITTLE OR NO CHANCE ONE HAPPENED. And you keep wasting time on the 1% chance. My time. Everyones time. Tell you what. Find some evidence or shut up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post

    Well what evidence do we have or even a line of thinking that would show relevance? It may certainly be relevant I agree but simply citing a difference in times and location offers nothing in terms of a different killer.

    c.d.
    One example....he gets off work at 2am. Near Bucks Row.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Well, it seems you dismissed the idea outright, (How is time and location in any way relevant? It only indicates a difference from other murders) I chose not to do that because it certainly may be relevant. To many questions...including the probable daily schedule of the assailant.
    Well what evidence do we have or even a line of thinking that would show relevance? It may certainly be relevant I agree but simply citing a difference in times and location offers nothing in terms of a different killer.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Both killed using different knives- this isn’t a fact.
    Stride killed out of time with all the other victims- 40 minutes before Eddowes?? Be serious Trevor.
    Stride no body wounds- interruption is entirely possible.
    Stride killed almost on a main street- how was Berner Street any more a main street than Bucks Row?
    Stride the only victim killed south of The Whitechapel road- and was there some kind of mysterious force field there?
    Stride killed when the public were still moving about and club members were in an out of the club.- fair point.

    I would say they are good reasons to suggest a different killer

    As usual you’re wrong.

    And this old tosh about being disturbed and unable to finish what he was intent on doing if farcical just an excuse to link her murder to the rest

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The fact that interruption was possible shouldn’t even be up for question. Anyone that says it’s not possible is simply and very obvious wrong (probably due to bias)

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    You do realize that you said may be, right?

    c.d.
    Well, it seems you dismissed the idea outright, (How is time and location in any way relevant? It only indicates a difference from other murders) I chose not to do that because it certainly may be relevant. To many questions...including the probable daily schedule of the assailant.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    You do realize that you said may be, right?

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X