Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Setting aside your unearned air of assumed superiority, youre grasping at straws and calling a single severance of a single artery comparable to deep double cuts that sever both. Hardly apples to apples.

The only thing that shows is that there was a difference in the number of cuts. In order for that to be significant, we would need to have 100% metaphysical certainty that the Ripper ALWAYS CUT the same number of times. Since we don't possess that evidence then cuts are simply cuts. One or two it makes no difference. In both instances they accomplished their goal, i.e., killing his victim.

c.d.

Exactly, and as it’s possible that the killer might have been interrupted why couldn’t the killer have heard whatever caused the interruption just after the first cut and before he had chance to make the second cut?

[Herlock Sholmes]

well that cuts both ways because you cant prove that Stride was a Ripper victim and the only point you seek to rely on to suggest she was related was having her throat cut and even that was not in line with the other murders,

I see you are still trying to prop up the same old same the old accpted theories, time to ditch those unreliable facts, the 21st century can now dispell them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m sorry Trevor but yet again you’re completely ignoring anything I’ve previously said. So I’ll repeat it for what must be the 20th time. I have never, ever claimed that Stride must have been a ripper victim. Please have a search because you keep repeating this falsehood to make your points. In fact I’ve stated my doubts on here numerous times. So why are you falsely claiming that I’m trying to prove that she was? All that I’ve ever said was that we cannot know for certain either way. So, if anything, I’m neutral on the question. Could I possibly make it any clearer? You and Michael however appear to be anything but neutral. You keep raising points that you believe point toward her not being a victim whilst at the same time ignoring the points that point in the other direction. So I’ll ask again why you are so desperate to try and have Stride dismissed as a victim.

Why is it then that neither of you appear to be willing to take a more open minded approach taking in everything that we know rather than taking a selective approach? None of the alleged facts that you refer to can be dispelled. Not a single one of them.

Stride might have been a victim. And she might not have been a victim. We will never be able to take it any further. All that we can do is give our individual opinions as to whether we suspect that she was or wasn’t. To claim to know flies in the face of reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I seem to recall seeing a sign that read "Commercial Road - No Ripping Allowed."

Your witch reference made me laugh. I looked up the water thing and found this picture:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/witches-cannot-cross-running-water-mary-evans-picture-library.html

c.d.

I had to check that one myself c.d. I was sure that I’d read somewhere about witches being unable to cross water.

[c.d.]

Setting aside your unearned air of assumed superiority, youre grasping at straws and calling a single severance of a single artery comparable to deep double cuts that sever both. Hardly apples to apples.

The only thing that shows is that there was a difference in the number of cuts. In order for that to be significant, we would need to have 100% metaphysical certainty that the Ripper ALWAYS CUT the same number of times. Since we don't possess that evidence then cuts are simply cuts. One or two it makes no difference. In both instances they accomplished their goal, i.e., killing his victim.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's worth asking why it's so important for some to try and 'prove' something that's essentially unprovable?

well that cuts both ways because you cant prove that Stride was a Ripper victim and the only point you seek to rely on to suggest she was related was having her throat cut and even that was not in line with the other murders,

I see you are still trying to prop up the same old same the old accpted theories, time to ditch those unreliable facts, the 21st century can now dispell them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

It's worth asking why it's so important for some to try and 'prove' something that's essentially unprovable?

"Important" seems a gross understatement. More like a question of religious doctrine with one's immortal soul at stake.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I can’t recall all of the points that you usually make but isn’t one of them that Stride’s murder took place on the other side of the Commercial Road? A bit desperate don’t you think? I know that witches aren’t supposed to be able to cross water but I’ve never heard that ‘the ripper couldn’t cross the Commercial Road?’

That said, of course it’s possible that she wasn’t a victim but the similarities are impossible to simply dismiss.

I seem to recall seeing a sign that read "Commercial Road - No Ripping Allowed."

Your witch reference made me laugh. I looked up the water thing and found this picture:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/witches-cannot-cross-running-water-mary-evans-picture-library.html

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's worth asking why it's so important for some to try and 'prove' something that's essentially unprovable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s noticeable that the ‘actively soliciting’ point is made only toward Nichols and Chapman (keeping to the Isenschmidt theory of course) Its also noticeable that again you try to set up impossible criteria in an attempt to disprove. How would we be able to prove that she was soliciting? She was just another faceless woman going about her business. Did anyone see Nichols ‘actively’ soliciting? She was potentially seen with various men though.

So we have - no ‘evidence’ of interruption which there very obviously wouldn’t have been and no ‘evidence of soliciting’ which, unless money was seen changing hands, we couldn’t have expected to see.

So setting up impossible ‘criteria’ is hardly a valid way of looking at things is it?

[Michael W Richards]

Well you need to to take the blinkers off, because they do exist, and are real, and do add to the suggestion that Stride was not killed by the same hand as Eddowes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The man that examined Stride did not believe that he saw the same hand in Eddowes. What anyone else thinks is moot. I happen to differ with Phillips on one point, he saw some similarity with Stride but not with Eddowes, and Im the reverse of that, based on the data.

[Michael W Richards]

No. There is physical evidence. The severed carotid artery and signs of strangulation. There is circumstantial evidence. The victimology matches previous victims. Another was killed one hour later in very similar circumstances. The location of the murder.

None of it conjecture. Conjecture is speculating about something you have zero evidence for and that is fine. I am all for theories but you ignore facts. It seems to be a speciality of yours.

Setting aside your unearned air of assumed superiority, youre grasping at straws and calling a single severance of a single artery comparable to deep double cuts that sever both. Hardly apples to apples. The Victimology? Is there any direct evidence that just as the 2 women who are assumed to be killed by Jack prior to Liz Stride that Liz was also actively soliciting? I suppose you consider that a trivial characteristic, when in fact it enabled the killer to have the women facilitate what he needed. Some modicum of privacy and time to cut. It allowed a stranger to get the victims into the dark, because thats where their trade takes place.

What reality is is that you have is zero evidence to include her, not the polar opposite. Thanks for playing though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well you need to to take the blinkers off, because they do exist, and are real, and do add to the suggestion that Stride was not killed by the same hand as Eddowes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can’t recall all of the points that you usually make but isn’t one of them that Stride’s murder took place on the other side of the Commercial Road? A bit desperate don’t you think? I know that witches aren’t supposed to be able to cross water but I’ve never heard that ‘the ripper couldn’t cross the Commercial Road?’

That said, of course it’s possible that she wasn’t a victim but the similarities are impossible to simply dismiss.

[Trevor Marriott]

You can’t forget something that doesn’t exist Trevor.

Well you need to to take the blinkers off, because they do exist, and are real, and do add to the suggestion that Stride was not killed by the same hand as Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are forgetting all the other facts which clearly show the two murders were not connected

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You can’t forget something that doesn’t exist Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

No. There is physical evidence. The severed carotid artery and signs of strangulation. There is circumstantial evidence. The victimology matches previous victims. Another was killed one hour later in very similar circumstances. The location of the murder.

None of it conjecture. Conjecture is speculating about something you have zero evidence for and that is fine. I am all for theories but you ignore facts. It seems to be a speciality of yours.

You are forgetting all the other facts which clearly show the two murders were not connected

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk