If Schwartz Lied ...

[FrankO]

The irony of Michael's theory is that if the body was discovered before 12.45, as he insists, that would put the murder and discovery so close together in time that the killer would almost certainly have been found with the body of his victim had he not left the scene promptly after cutting her throat. Assuming he didn't fancy being caught with knife in hand, he'd have had no choice but to make himself scarce when he heard the pony and cart's approach. So if his intention had been to mutilate [which I dispute more on the grounds of the risky location than that this could not possibly have been the ripper], this interruption by Michael's premature pony would have caused him to abandon his plans and - wait for it - there'd have been no evidence for it, because nobody ever saw the killer in the act of cutting a throat or escaping the scene.

This is what I was thinking, too, Caz. If, as Michael suggests, Diemshutz discovered the body at around 12:39 (sending Kozebrodski off for a PC at around 12:40), then the medical evidence alone compels us to conclude that Stride was killed very shortly indeed before Diemshutz came upon her.

Conversely, if Stride was last seen alive at or shortly before 12.45, and Louis gave a false time of discovery of 1am, as Michael insists, this would effectively have offered a massive 15 minute window in which the killer could have ripped to his heart's content - but didn't.

I believe this is one of the important reasons why Michael is convinced it couldn't have been a Ripper victim. And, the way I see things, about the only understandable thing he has to say about the Stride murder. Mind you, not the part about Diemshutz giving a false time of discovery.

All the best,
Frank

[caz]

Hi Frank, Herlock,

Amazing to think how well everything worked out for Louis, if he was lying through his teeth about his arrival time - not least that Fanny M heard just the one pony and cart at the right time, immediately before the alarm was raised and the commotion began.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

You’re explanation of Diemschutz (again) should eliminate any further mention of the word ‘precisely’ but, as we both know, it won’t.

I'm sure that it won't, Michael.

Frank it would be good if you posted your timeline on here.

OK, here's the sequenceline as I posted it on the thread "Sequence of comings & goings - Stride" https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-goings-stride


As per the Evening News of 1 October “a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.” According to this same newspaper edition Mrs. Mortimer saw that “A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.”
It seems that Mortimer spoke to the girl after the discovery of Stride’s lifeless body in the yard. And it could well be that Brown actually saw this girl with her boyfriend and not Stride. If we’re supposing this was the same couple, then:

1. this couple must have been standing there, just as Mortimer says, before and after the murder was committed and perhaps even during, although they may have moved a bit away from Berner Street while they were talking, still remaining within 50 yards of the yard
2. the couple were still there after the discovery, as it would seem both Mortimer and the Evening News talked to the girl about the period that they had been standing there
3. Mortimer doesn’t claim to have seen Brown pass, so it would seem that Mortimer wasn’t at her door when this happened; in other words, she must have come at her door after he passed
4. as neither Mortimer, Brown or the couple heard or saw anything of the Schwarz incident, the incident took place before the couple arrived at the corner of the board school

So, this is the sequence based on the above 4 points:

1. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
2. Brown passes and sees the couple
3. Mortimer comes to her door
4. Leon Goldstein passes
5. Mortimer goes back inside

The problematic period is between, say, 12:30 and the Schwartz incident.
We have quite a few things happening at or around 12:30 am:
- Charles Letchford arrives home
- William Wess, his brother and Louis Stansley leave the club by the steet door to go home
- Joseph Lave came out to get a breath of fresh air and stayed out for some 10 minutes
None of them saw each other or anyone else – or if they did, they didn’t say so.
Then there’s Morris Eagle who arrives back at the club at around 12:40 am

So, this may be the sequence based on the above:

1. Wess & company leave
2. Letchford arrives
3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
4. Eagle returns to the club

Then we’re left with the arrival of Stride & companion in the vicinity of the club, followed by Smith’s arrival when he sees them opposite the yard and the Schwartz incident, that must have taken place before the couple seen by Brown & Mortimer arrives at the corner of the board school. Since the men above don’t mention Smith and/or Stride & companion and Smith only mentions Stride & companion and none of the above, it seems logical that Stride arrives at the scene after Eagle returns to the club.

So, the most logical sequence based on the above seems:

1. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
2. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club
3. Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation commence between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him

The complete sequence, including the period after the discovery of Stride’s body, is then as follows:

1. Wess & company leave / Letchford arrives
2. Letchford arrives / Wess & company leave
3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
4. Eagle returns to the club
5. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
6. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him
7. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
8. Brown passes and sees the couple
9. Mortimer comes to her door
10. Leon Goldstein passes the club
11. Mortimer goes back inside
12. Louis Diemshutz arrives in the yard and discovers Stride
13. Diemshutz & Kozebrodski run south searching for a policeman, Eagle north
14. Edward Spooner arrives at the scene together with Diemshutz; Kozebrodski joins Eagle and they find P.C. Lamb; Mortimer enters the yard (she sees Spooner touch Stride’s face – Evening News, 1 October)
15. P.C. Lamb arrives, followed by another P.C. (426 H)
16. P.C. 426 is sent for Blackwell, Eagle for Inspector Pinhorn and blows his whistle
17. P.C. Albert Collins arrives as a result of the whistle (Smith sees 2 constables on his arrival and PC 426 isn’t at the scene then)
18. P.C. Smith arrives at the scene
19. As Edward Johnson, Blackwell’s assistant, arrives with PC 426, Smith leaves to get the ambulance
20. Lamb closes the gates
21. Dr. Blackwell arrives at the scene
22. Inspector Pinhorn arrives
23. Dr. Phillips arrives

I’ve left the times out so they can't get in the way, but if we want to put times to each coming or going, I think that everything should start with Blackwell’s timing, as he consulted his watch when he arrived in the yard. Furthermore, I’m not claiming that the list above MUST be correct, so anybody who wants to have a go at it, be my guest. And, of course, if we'd assume that Brown did see Stride & companion and not the couple Mortimer spoke to, then something might change.

All the best,
Frank

[caz]

I believe this is one of the important reasons why Michael is convinced it couldn't have been a Ripper victim. And, the way I see things, about the only understandable thing he has to say about the Stride murder. Mind you, not the part about Diemshutz giving a false time of discovery.

All the best,
Frank

As you imply by that wink, Frank, something has gone all topsy turvy with Michael's reasoning. If he started out genuinely convinced that Stride's killer wasn't the ripping kind, because he had plenty of time and opportunity - between 12.35 and 1am - to mutilate her, but chose not to do so, that was a reasonable position to take. But not when he became convinced of an earlier discovery time, followed by a 20 minute arse covering exercise, which would effectively have closed any ripping window down to near zero. So even if there had been such a conspiracy to try and protect the club, those involved could not possibly have known if the killer was or wasn't the Whitechapel mutilator, or if he was or wasn't a Jewish anarchist in their midst. Could have been neither - or both.

One of Michael's arguments was that Louis and co would have known straight away that Stride hadn't been mutilated, and only had a single throat wound, leading them to conclude that this was not "another" murder by the same man, and to worry that this killer was much closer to home. But if it was also pretty obvious that she had only just been killed when they found her, why would they have concluded anything about who the killer was or wasn't from the lack of mutilation?

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

As you imply by that wink, Frank, something has gone all topsy turvy with Michael's reasoning. If he started out genuinely convinced that Stride's killer wasn't the ripping kind, because he had plenty of time and opportunity - between 12.35 and 1am - to mutilate her, but chose not to do so, that was a reasonable position to take. But not when he became convinced of an earlier discovery time, followed by a 20 minute arse covering exercise, which would effectively have closed any ripping window down to near zero.

I totally agree, Caz.

So even if there had been such a conspiracy to try and protect the club, those involved could not possibly have known if the killer was or wasn't the Whitechapel mutilator, or if he was or wasn't a Jewish anarchist in their midst. Could have been neither - or both.

Well, I could understand that they wanted to protect the killer and/or the club, if they knew which one of them was the killer. But even then the plan Michael R. claims they - well, just Diemshutz & Eagle - are supposed to have come up with to that end is remarkably full of wholes.

One of Michael's arguments was that Louis and co would have known straight away that Stride hadn't been mutilated, and only had a single throat wound, leading them to conclude that this was not "another" murder by the same man, and to worry that this killer was much closer to home. But if it was also pretty obvious that she had only just been killed when they found her, why would they have concluded anything about who the killer was or wasn't from the lack of mutilation?

Have you forgotten, dear Caz, that an aborted intent to mutilate would have left evidence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sure that it won't, Michael.


OK, here's the sequenceline as I posted it on the thread "Sequence of comings & goings - Stride" https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-goings-stride


As per the Evening News of 1 October “a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.” According to this same newspaper edition Mrs. Mortimer saw that “A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.”
It seems that Mortimer spoke to the girl after the discovery of Stride’s lifeless body in the yard. And it could well be that Brown actually saw this girl with her boyfriend and not Stride. If we’re supposing this was the same couple, then:

1. this couple must have been standing there, just as Mortimer says, before and after the murder was committed and perhaps even during, although they may have moved a bit away from Berner Street while they were talking, still remaining within 50 yards of the yard
2. the couple were still there after the discovery, as it would seem both Mortimer and the Evening News talked to the girl about the period that they had been standing there
3. Mortimer doesn’t claim to have seen Brown pass, so it would seem that Mortimer wasn’t at her door when this happened; in other words, she must have come at her door after he passed
4. as neither Mortimer, Brown or the couple heard or saw anything of the Schwarz incident, the incident took place before the couple arrived at the corner of the board school

So, this is the sequence based on the above 4 points:

1. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
2. Brown passes and sees the couple
3. Mortimer comes to her door
4. Leon Goldstein passes
5. Mortimer goes back inside

The problematic period is between, say, 12:30 and the Schwartz incident.
We have quite a few things happening at or around 12:30 am:
- Charles Letchford arrives home
- William Wess, his brother and Louis Stansley leave the club by the steet door to go home
- Joseph Lave came out to get a breath of fresh air and stayed out for some 10 minutes
None of them saw each other or anyone else – or if they did, they didn’t say so.
Then there’s Morris Eagle who arrives back at the club at around 12:40 am

So, this may be the sequence based on the above:

1. Wess & company leave
2. Letchford arrives
3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
4. Eagle returns to the club

Then we’re left with the arrival of Stride & companion in the vicinity of the club, followed by Smith’s arrival when he sees them opposite the yard and the Schwartz incident, that must have taken place before the couple seen by Brown & Mortimer arrives at the corner of the board school. Since the men above don’t mention Smith and/or Stride & companion and Smith only mentions Stride & companion and none of the above, it seems logical that Stride arrives at the scene after Eagle returns to the club.

So, the most logical sequence based on the above seems:

1. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
2. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club
3. Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation commence between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him

The complete sequence, including the period after the discovery of Stride’s body, is then as follows:

1. Wess & company leave / Letchford arrives
2. Letchford arrives / Wess & company leave
3. Lave goes outside (and remains there for 5 to 10 minutes)
4. Eagle returns to the club
5. Stride & companion arrive close to the club
6. Smith arrives and sees Stride & companion opposite the club Stride, now alone, is standing at the entrance of the yard when Schwartz sees an altercation between Stride and a man who had been walking ahead of him
7. couple arrives at the corner of the board school
8. Brown passes and sees the couple
9. Mortimer comes to her door
10. Leon Goldstein passes the club
11. Mortimer goes back inside
12. Louis Diemshutz arrives in the yard and discovers Stride
13. Diemshutz & Kozebrodski run south searching for a policeman, Eagle north
14. Edward Spooner arrives at the scene together with Diemshutz; Kozebrodski joins Eagle and they find P.C. Lamb; Mortimer enters the yard (she sees Spooner touch Stride’s face – Evening News, 1 October)
15. P.C. Lamb arrives, followed by another P.C. (426 H)
16. P.C. 426 is sent for Blackwell, Eagle for Inspector Pinhorn and blows his whistle
17. P.C. Albert Collins arrives as a result of the whistle (Smith sees 2 constables on his arrival and PC 426 isn’t at the scene then)
18. P.C. Smith arrives at the scene
19. As Edward Johnson, Blackwell’s assistant, arrives with PC 426, Smith leaves to get the ambulance
20. Lamb closes the gates
21. Dr. Blackwell arrives at the scene
22. Inspector Pinhorn arrives
23. Dr. Phillips arrives

I’ve left the times out so they can't get in the way, but if we want to put times to each coming or going, I think that everything should start with Blackwell’s timing, as he consulted his watch when he arrived in the yard. Furthermore, I’m not claiming that the list above MUST be correct, so anybody who wants to have a go at it, be my guest. And, of course, if we'd assume that Brown did see Stride & companion and not the couple Mortimer spoke to, then something might change.

All the best,
Frank

That all makes sense to me Frank Obviously Michael will use exact quoted times to try and disprove it but taking a reasoned, common sense approach shows that we can explain what happened.

[Michael W Richards]

I cannot believe the distance some of you are willing to go just to stand on a podium and proclaim someones ideas "incorrect"...like anyone of you has ANY PROOF thats the case.

Anyway, you are all missing what is between the lines here, and for those of you who choose to back witness statements that have Liz Stride in full view of anyone who was there at 12:45, along with no less than 3 other people...all on a street that EVERY witness in that area during that time said was "empty", "deserted", a street where no-one we can say for sure was there saw anyone but a young couple and Leon Goldstein between 12:35 and 1am, then I can understand the confusion.

In between the lines...how do any of you know that Louis didnt arrive when I said he did? Do any of you know that he, or Morris, or Joseph didnt cut her throat...they are the only ones near the gates at 12:40? Do any of you know that Issac K was lying when he said he was sent out at 12:40ish, or that any of the other men who said they were "standing around" with others were not there when they said they were? Do any of you know that Israel Schwartz was quoted accurately during translation, or that he came forward on his own accord? Do any of you have records that say he was a part of the Inquest in any shape and fashion?

I could list a thousand ways that youve assumed so much about this, and other murders, that makes objective intelligent discussion impossible.

So...for posterity sake, Women cut once are not ripped, a cut around 12:46 puts the people already on site the only people around, and relying on Herlock or Caz for truth will get you absolutely nowhere. They believe a Ripper cut once, they believe an interruption would explain that single cut even though none exists in the records, and they seem to believe that anarchists who in a few months prove their loyalty to the law by attacking policemen with clubs in that very yard were just gentle, law abiding men...despite the fact that the word anarchist should be some hint to them. They believe that people giving stories that have no secondary verification outweigh multiple corroborated accounts, they believe people wouldnt be fearful of losing income or a place to hang out so they can bad mouth the political systems that they chose to live in, or people that helped hurt the economy by inciting mass strikes of workers. They believe things they cant prove. They believe things that are provably wrong. All because ......so they can have a Jack to be spooked by. Message boards are great if you are talking to people who have altruistic goals and are seeking understanding an truth, but self serving a** h**** are also a part of online discussions.

Well, I can tell you this..the locals had much more scary people than mere street women killers in their midst at that time. And they had a plentiful supply of men willing to kill, for whatever reasons they saw fit. Jack the Ripper will go on because of this kind of ignorance and arrogance. Not because one shred of proof has ever been produced to connect even one "Canonical" victim with just 1 other.

As long as youre here, just skip the tripe and use that vast and remarkable resources made available to educate yourself, make up your own minds about issues, and dont let people without any proof of what they claim is a "fact" tell you what to think.

Herlock and Caz have ZERO proof that what I proposed cant be correct...they just think it is wrong. Like I care what they think. Non should you. Its hardly useful rebuttal, and just reveals more about them than it does any facts.

I wish you well in your search, and hopefully you dont get as many blockheads in your way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I cannot believe the distance some of you are willing to go just to stand on a podium and proclaim someones ideas "incorrect"...like anyone of you has ANY PROOF thats the case.

Anyway, you are all missing what is between the lines here, and for those of you who choose to back witness statements that have Liz Stride in full view of anyone who was there at 12:45, along with no less than 3 other people...all on a street that EVERY witness in that area during that time said was "empty", "deserted", a street where no-one we can say for sure was there saw anyone but a young couple and Leon Goldstein between 12:35 and 1am, then I can understand the confusion.

In between the lines...how do any of you know that Louis didnt arrive when I said he did? Do any of you know that he, or Morris, or Joseph didnt cut her throat...they are the only ones near the gates at 12:40? Do any of you know that Issac K was lying when he said he was sent out at 12:40ish, or that any of the other men who said they were "standing around" with others were not there when they said they were? Do any of you know that Israel Schwartz was quoted accurately during translation, or that he came forward on his own accord? Do any of you have records that say he was a part of the Inquest in any shape and fashion?

I could list a thousand ways that youve assumed so much about this, and other murders, that makes objective intelligent discussion impossible.

So...for posterity sake, Women cut once are not ripped, a cut around 12:46 puts the people already on site the only people around, and relying on Herlock or Caz for truth will get you absolutely nowhere. They believe a Ripper cut once, they believe an interruption would explain that single cut even though none exists in the records, and they seem to believe that anarchists who in a few months prove their loyalty to the law by attacking policemen with clubs in that very yard were just gentle, law abiding men...despite the fact that the word anarchist should be some hint to them. They believe that people giving stories that have no secondary verification outweigh multiple corroborated accounts, they believe people wouldnt be fearful of losing income or a place to hang out so they can bad mouth the political systems that they chose to live in, or people that helped hurt the economy by inciting mass strikes of workers. They believe things they cant prove. They believe things that are provably wrong. All because ......so they can have a Jack to be spooked by. Message boards are great if you are talking to people who have altruistic goals and are seeking understanding an truth, but self serving a** h**** are also a part of online discussions.

Well, I can tell you this..the locals had much more scary people than mere street women killers in their midst at that time. And they had a plentiful supply of men willing to kill, for whatever reasons they saw fit. Jack the Ripper will go on because of this kind of ignorance and arrogance. Not because one shred of proof has ever been produced to connect even one "Canonical" victim with just 1 other.

As long as youre here, just skip the tripe and use that vast and remarkable resources made available to educate yourself, make up your own minds about issues, and dont let people without any proof of what they claim is a "fact" tell you what to think.

Herlock and Caz have ZERO proof that what I proposed cant be correct...they just think it is wrong. Like I care what they think. Non should you. Its hardly useful rebuttal, and just reveals more about them than it does any facts.

I wish you well in your search, and hopefully you dont get as many blockheads in your way.

Firstly I’d like to make a slight correction about Caz and myself not believing in your cover-up theory and the fact that you don’t care what we think. What you should be saying (for accuracy) is that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE believes your theory. That fact alone should be ringing alarm bells Michael but you’re just deaf to them. Forget me and Caz and Frank and think of how many others have looked into your theory over the years? If you’re theory had even a modicum of traction then you’d have a few supporters. But you don’t Michael. People have looked at the lines and between them, weighed up witnesses, checked timings, studied maps and diagrams and all have concluded that there was no cover-up. So we’re not the one’s on the fringe as you try to portray it. You are. Way out on the fringe completely isolated and without support.

How Anarchists would or would not behave is largely irrelevant because you haven’t proved a plot. You have created a scenario. This doesn’t equate to a solution but you appear to struggle with this concept. The weakness of you're cover-up have been explained to you and ignored by you ad nauseam Michael. You’re protecting your baby.

Again you go for the ‘evidence of absence’ nonsense!! To be honest Michael I’d have expected you to have quietly abandoned this one but clearly not. How embarrassing. Do I really need to explain this again? Killer cuts woman’s throat - as he does so something disturbs him - he stops (perhaps to see if the source of the noise passes by) - it doesn’t - he scarpers. So, according to your ‘evidence of absence’ drivel the crime scene should then show evidence of the killers intention to mutilate and if it doesn’t show this ‘evidence’ then the killer must have had no intention of mutilating. No serious, thinking adult could accept this. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself by pursuing it? I don’t think that I can recall a more desperate attempt at trying to justify a point. You can keep bringing it up though Michael as no team would turn down the opportunity of benefitting from so many own goals.

You’re right about one thing though. Intelligent discussion IS impossible. It’s impossible with someone so warped with bias as you are. Someone that will stoop to any depth to try (and fail miserably) to shoehorn a theory in to place.

We’ve gone through all of the witnesses but you’re not interested in assessing them or weighing them up. You see a witness that the evidence shows to have been mistaken and you insist that he was correct. You see a witness who is (and admits so himself) estimating the time but you insist that we have to take him at an exact time. You even dispute the fact that most people at that time didn’t own watches or clocks!! Not based on evidence but because its self-serving.

Frank has just given a perfectly reasonably, reasoned version of events. But no, you DEMAND that Fanny Mortimer must have been on her doorstep at exactly 12.45 and that she couldn’t possibly have missed seeing Schwartz had he been there despite the fact that the whole incident, including walking, would have taken under a minute. She didn’t see Diemschutz return early though. Nor did she here or see any evidence of a commotion at the yard (until after 1.00) of course.

......

I’ll just ask a question to all?

Would

. blockheads

and

. self serving a** h****

class as personal insults?

Just for future reference when I get accused of being insulting just for posting a few of these

cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

I haven't followed the completely (and very long) debate about Spooner here, but clearly there is one? For what it's worth, in regards to his time, James Brown (who was decidedly more sure of his timing than Spooner) saw the men run up to Spooner when Spooner was on the corner. Brown assumed it was a constable they were speaking to. So Spooner was way off in his timing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't followed the completely (and very long) debate about Spooner here, but clearly there is one? For what it's worth, in regards to his time, James Brown (who was decidedly more sure of his timing than Spooner) saw the men run up to Spooner when Spooner was on the corner. Brown assumed it was a constable they were speaking to. So Spooner was way off in his timing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks Tom. As you say his estimation was off and based on various things including pub closing times, standing around times, walking time, the estimated time for a conversation etc and this from a man with no watch or clock available to consult. This doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have estimated correctly of course but it was fertile ground for error. What’s more solid of course is that he said that he’d been in the yard for 5 minutes before Lamb arrived. We know that Lamb arrived some time shortly after 1.00. So according to Michael, who believes that Spooner arrived at the yard at 12.35, he wasn’t just slightly out in his estimation of how long he’d been there before Lamb arrived, he was a whole 30 minutes out. We have to allow a bit of leeway with witnesses of course but not 30 minutes. Everything points to Spooner reaching that yard just after 1.00.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d advise/suggest that certain posters on here check out 2 articles posted today by David Orsam.

”Who Is The Real Fraud?” Where he takes apart Michael’s Gillen nonsense.

and “An Inquiry Into A Coroner’s Enquiry.” Which should finally put to bed the baseless suggestion the Schwartz was called to the Inquest because the police had no faith in him.

The phrase “wriggle your way of of those two,” comes to mind?

[Michael W Richards]

Treading water to stay afloat are we? Dont worry Herlock, Im no longer interested in insulting you...yes, they were personal insults,..but Im fascinated that you still believe in some superior ability to interpret data. And to make conclusions about something that is, if anything, inconclusive.

What opinions David Orsam has are his own. If he intends to support the unsupportable,..Schwartz having any real value, then I suppose he has no real insghts to offer on the matter. People like you have said the same thing. Problem with that is the complete and total lack of proof and evidence required to make this viable.

I stand by my accusations about the club attendees, in particular the club staffers and residents, I stand by the facts which have witnesses giving times that cannot all be accurate, and I stand by the fact that 4 men claiming an event and experience that they had is far more compelling than storytelling. Not one single witness saw Eagle arrive when he says, not one witness sees or hears Louis arrive..just a "cart and horse" passing shortly AFTER 1am, 2 club witnesses say they were standing in the same place at the same time and neither saw anyone..one of those witnesses also "couldnt be sure" whether the murder victim was already there when he says he went into the passage at 12:40. I stand by the claim that IF Israel was fully believed it would be impossible for him not to be included in some form at the Inquest, and I stand by the fact that the Inquest in many ways is suspect. Mary Malcolm, opening the INquest with someone who said he left the area 30 minutes before Louis claims he came upon the woman. You lead the Inquest with the person who found the victim or the last person known to have seen them alive. IF Wess was deemed to have met either of those requirements, it can only be as the last person to see the victim alive. Interesting note that even Wess hedged about anything in the passageway when was going to get his brother in the club....

"Did you look towards the yard gates? - Not so much to the gates as to the ground, but nothing unusual attracted my attention.

Can you say that there was no object on the ground? - I could not say that.

Do you think it possible that anything can have been there without your observing it? - It was dark, and I am a little shortsighted, so that it is possible. The distance from the gates to the kitchen door is 18 ft.

You have what is essentially club affiliated people perceived by local law enforcement as lawless making claims without any second hand verification posed against men who gave statements that validate one another without any preconception. And the choice? The men who have no proof, poor reputations with the law, and a vested interest in the perceptions of the police of this incident.

As I said, let no person tell you what to believe, if they can prove it, thats something else. Students reading this are being asked to accept mere opinions including by someone with a dyslexic moniker as facts. They arent. Nothing in terms of evidence has been offered to validate their "hunches". They think this and that, but dishonestly represent their opinions and thoughts as viable arguments.

I just summarized the actual facts and leave it up to anyone who really studies this murder objectively to make up their mind. If anything like a conclusion is made its premature, no evidence supports either position. But the facts add up.

Herlock thinks Jack the Ripper killed a woman who was not ripped in any way, he thinks an interruption which is in no way in any evidence is the reason for the lack of damage, and he thinks the Inquest organizers believed Israel Schwartz despite the fact he is left out of it entirely. He thinks that. Has he been able to find any proof of that?..................................no. But he rudely and persistently insults those who call him out for it.

This study is unfortunately filled with people with agendas, people who are not capable of interpreting actual data, and people who will believe anything. The upside is it also has people who say "Prove there was a Jack the Ripper". For my money,those are the ones to follow. Because aside from revealing insights about characters and places via some stellar research by some members, not one "Ripper" murder has ever been proven to be linked with another.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Treading water to stay afloat are we? Dont worry Herlock, Im no longer interested in insulting you...yes, they were personal insults,..but Im fascinated that you still believe in some superior ability to interpret data. And to make conclusions about something that is, if anything, inconclusive.

Unlike you, I’ve never made any claim to superior knowledge. I can read. I can spell Gilleman. I understand that timings have to be allowed some leeway. I don’t cherrypick evidence. I don’t dishonestly and disgracefully claim that Gilleman and Eagle support an earlier time of discovery. Simple stuff....unless you’re biased of course.....which you undoubtedly are.

What opinions David Orsam has are his own. If he intends to support the unsupportable,..Schwartz having any real value, then I suppose he has no real insghts to offer on the matter. People like you have said the same thing. Problem with that is the complete and total lack of proof and evidence required to make this viable.

Anyone that says that Schwartz was left out of the Inquest because the police didn’t trust his evidence is divorced from reality. And absolutely dishonest. David’s article refuted this nonsense categorically. The games up.

I stand by my accusations about the club attendees, in particular the club staffers and residents,

Of course you do...you’re hopelessly biased and too embarrassed to admit that you’ve been wrong for 10 years.


I stand by the facts which have witnesses giving times that cannot all be accurate, and I stand by the fact that 4 men claiming an event and experience that they had is far more compelling than storytelling.

Dishonesty. Point me to where Gilleman says that the body was discovered earlier. Stop babbling and PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. You won’t because it doesn’t exist. And please learn to spell G-I-L-L-E-M-A-N. not G-I-L-L-E-N, who doesn’t exist. If you have to resort to making things up at least get the names right.

Not one single witness saw Eagle arrive when he says, not one witness sees or hears Louis arrive..just a "cart and horse" passing shortly AFTER 1am,

Not one person saw Liz having her throat cut but she did.

2 club witnesses say they were standing in the same place at the same time and neither saw anyone..one of those witnesses also "couldnt be sure" whether the murder victim was already there when he says he went into the passage at 12:40. I stand by the claim that IF Israel was fully believed it would be impossible for him not to be included in some form at the Inquest,

Then you’re clearly delusional.

and I stand by the fact that the Inquest in many ways is suspect. Mary Malcolm, opening the INquest with someone who said he left the area 30 minutes before Louis claims he came upon the woman. You lead the Inquest with the person who found the victim or the last person known to have seen them alive. IF Wess was deemed to have met either of those requirements, it can only be as the last person to see the victim alive. Interesting note that even Wess hedged about anything in the passageway when was going to get his brother in the club....

"Did you look towards the yard gates? - Not so much to the gates as to the ground, but nothing unusual attracted my attention.

Can you say that there was no object on the ground? - I could not say that.

Do you think it possible that anything can have been there without your observing it? - It was dark, and I am a little shortsighted, so that it is possible. The distance from the gates to the kitchen door is 18 ft.

You have what is essentially club affiliated people perceived by local law enforcement as lawless making claims without any second hand verification posed against men who gave statements that validate one another without any preconception. And the choice? The men who have no proof, poor reputations with the law, and a vested interest in the perceptions of the police of this incident.

Absolute, unadulterated, baseless, laughable, provably wrong waffle.

As I said, let no person tell you what to believe, if they can prove it, thats something else. Students reading this are being asked to accept mere opinions including by someone with a dyslexic moniker as facts.

Then I return to the same point (which you won’t answer of course) WHY DOES NO ONE AGREE WITH YOUR THEORY MICHAEL?

They arent. Nothing in terms of evidence has been offered to validate their "hunches". They think this and that, but dishonestly represent their opinions and thoughts as viable arguments.

The evidence is there. It shows that Diemschutz discovered the body when he said that he did. Gilleman told Eagle and Eagle saw the body when he said that he did. All the evidence is there. All the conspiracies are in your head.

I just summarized the actual facts and leave it up to anyone who really studies this murder objectively to make up their mind. If anything like a conclusion is made its premature, no evidence supports either position. But the facts add up.

You wouldn't know a fact Michael. You are incapable of assessing evidence. It’s beyond you. You invent a cover up and lie about evidence to shoehorn it into place. Christ you’ve even made up a witness...Gillen

Herlock thinks Jack the Ripper killed a woman who was not ripped in any way, he thinks an interruption which is in no way in any evidence is the reason for the lack of damage,

I’ll say it now.....anyone who uses the ‘evidence of absence’ argument is either an idiot or a liar.

and he thinks the Inquest organizers believed Israel Schwartz despite the fact he is left out of it entirely. He thinks that. Has he been able to find any proof of that?..................................no. But he rudely and persistently insults those who call him out for it.

AND THERE WE ARE.....AS PREDICTED BY ME IN POST #308. I GET ACCUSED OF BEING INSULTING AFTER HE CALLS ME ANC CAZ BLOCKHEADS AND A-HOLES. Need I say more?

This study is unfortunately filled with people with agendas,

IN CASE YOU HADN'T NOTICED, YOU'RE THE ONE WITH THE THEORY TO DEFEND. WHICH YOU DO BY MANIPULATION, AVOIDANCE AND INVENTIONS.

people who are not capable of interpreting actual data,

WHICH, AS FAR AS YOUR THEORY GOES, IS EVERY SINGLE RIPPEROLOGIST ON THE PLANET WHETHER ALIVE OR DEAD.


and people who will believe anything.

Like your theory for example?

The upside is it also has people who say "Prove there was a Jack the Ripper". For my money,those are the ones to follow.

The delusional.

Because aside from revealing insights about characters and places via some stellar research by some members, not one "Ripper" murder has ever been proven to be linked with another.

Yup they were a series of unconnected suicides. Get real Michael.

You’re comedy theory is dead. There’s not a single person anywhere on earth that gives it the time of day. You’ve shown yourself to be a poster that will stoop to any depth to maintain your theory. You’ve invented witnesses and statements which don’t exist. You’ve cherrypicked guesses whilst turning a blind eye to times that are backed up. So you can keep piling on the insults Michael (whilst dishonestly accusing me of the same) I’ve tried engaging with you on individual pieces of evidence but you’re simply not interested in acknowledging the existence of anything that disagrees with your theory. Spooners ‘5 minutes before Lamb’ is a perfect example. You repeatedly blanked me on the subject. A point blank refusal to acknowledge it. Then finally what did you say....after about 20 requests....that he never said it! I posted the quote then what?.....yup, back to the silence. That’s in black and white Michael. It proves your dishonesty on this subject. I only say it because I can back it up with the posts on here.

Id say that you’re pretty much a laughing stock by now. Even with your baseless theory this could have been avoided if only you’d discussed the subject fairly and not tried manipulating and avoiding. You’ve been caught out (as David Orsam has pointed out)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please show us all where Gilleman confirms an earlier discovery time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Students reading this are being asked to accept mere opinions including by someone with a dyslexic moniker as facts.

Two points.

1. Students of the case all accept that Diemschutz discovered the body at 1.00. They looked at the evidence, looked at your theory, had a bit of a chuckle, then concluded the very obvious.

2. You do realise that Herlock Sholmes isn’t my real name don't you? I fail to see how it’s relevant?