Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Michael W Richards]

I see your intent on imagining scenarios based on Pipemen and Broad Shouldered folks and carroty Pipemen. All of which we have no evidence were there at all...along with the very witness who claimed to see them..., and no confirmation at all for in the formal Inquest into this death.

Amazing what people will choose to believe despite the facts. Now I see how Trumps mind works.

[Michael W Richards]

I cant respond directly to comments Herlock makes because Ive blocked them....too much work having to constantly remind him of the bleeding obvious....but Fanny Mortimer stated in more than one published account that she was at her door "almost the whole time" from 12:30 until 1am, and that after going inside briefly during that half hour she returned to the door around 12:50 and remained there until 1am...we can confirm this by her sighting of Goldstein around 12:55-56. She did not see anyone else during that 10 minutes....and certainly not the arrival of Diemshitz which he insisted was 1am. She said had anyone left through those gates before 1am she would certainly have seen them.

So...stopping Dissing Fanny and finally realize that Liz Strides killer, who cuts her as early as 12:56, doesnt come from the street at all. He was on the property, which is the only place Fanny couldnt see.

Hardly Jack. But its fun playing what if isnt it? If youre really just here to jerk around and have nothing answered.

[Trevor Marriott]

This was another post directed at Herlock, but I would add that Stride's murder was different from the rest. That much is bleedin' obvious, Trev.

So if it was that bleeding obvious then there is a doubt about her killler, its not rocket science

https://www.trevormarr

[caz]

He could have escaped when Diemschutz went into the club.

Indeed, Herlock. As it was so dark in the yard that Louis needed a match to see what had caused his pony to shy, the killer only had to crouch down a little away from the body and keep still, and wait for the chance to leave unseen. Louis's attention would have been on the woman before he went inside the club for help.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

she may have had her throat cut by bs man at any time during or after what schwartz saw. maybe schwartz interuption distracted bsman man enough that she was able to get away and run into the yard toward the voices and perceived help. he may have caught her in tje yard. at any time after cutting her throat the interuption by schwartz and or the noise coming from the club could have spooked him to take off before mutilating her.

Also, there was always the danger of Schwartz or Pipeman alerting a policeman to go to Stride's aid, as Lechmere and Paul alerted PC Mizen to Nichols in Buck's Row.

And if that didn't put the killer off hanging around with Stride's body a moment longer than necessary - possibly because BS man didn't kill her and left the coast clear for whoever did - then the approaching pony and cart would have done! That would apply whether or not the killer had ever intended to do more than slit her throat. Either he could afford to fanny about with his freshly killed victim or he couldn't. If he couldn't, due to a real risk of being caught red handed, then that tells us nothing about his identity or his motives.

Love,

Caz
X

[Astatine211]

Wasn't Pipeman identified, arrested and cleared. At first they didn't believe his version because it contradicted what Schwartz had said but they were later able to clear him with Swanson writing Pipeman was no longer a suspect.

[caz]

If you dont have a blinkered approach, why do you continue to question the proveable facts which I have presented, which in my opinon makes Strides murder different from the rest?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This was another post directed at Herlock, but I would add that Stride's murder was different from the rest. That much is bleedin' obvious, Trev.

But what is also bleedin' obvious is that every murder was different from the one before and the one after, in time and place and what was done to the victim.

Rachel Nickell's murder was very different from Samantha Bisset's in all three aspects, plus they were separated by over a year, but even you had to acknowledge they were murdered by the same man, in circumstances that dictated what he was able to do to each victim.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Herlock has a 'blinkered approach' for neither ruling out Stride as a ripper victim nor concluding she was?

Trevor, you must already be sporting your smart new Colin Stagg Blinkers, if you could write the above without a trace of self awareness.

Love,

Caz
X

You couldn’t make it up Caz.

[caz]

I have no agenga, I call it as I see if from an investigators perspective which clearly your blinkered approach will not allow you to do

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So Herlock has a 'blinkered approach' for neither ruling out Stride as a ripper victim nor concluding she was?

Trevor, you must already be sporting your smart new Colin Stagg Blinkers, if you could write the above without a trace of self awareness.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmm...then why isnt he recorded in any Inquest documentation. Not a peep.

I do have a problem with having to point out to folks all the reasons to suggest Strides killer wasnt a Ripper...its virtually self evident for god sakes. But just for the jolly.......IF Schwartz was telling the truth then BSM is almost certainly Strides killer, but since we cannot presume he was believed or factual in his account, then the overwhelming conclusion must be that her killer came from that yard or the club. Which makes perfect sense since we have a witness at her door to the street "almost the whole time" between 12:30 and 1am, and conctinuously from 12:50 until 1am, and she saw only Goldstein around 12:55. Again, why people ignore a witness who is at her door during the time a killer would arrive and/or leave, and no-one does.

We also have to ask why ‘some’ ignore the fact that Fanny said that she went onto her doorstep just after Smith passed and stayed there for 10 minutes. Smith said that he passed from 12.30-12.35.

Therefore she was on her doorstep either 12.30-12.40 or 12.35-12.45. So she could have still been inside when Schwartz passed. Of course this is very inconvenient to some but to make a theory ‘fit’ it gets brushed under the carpet. Of course.

[c.d.]

Again, why people ignore a witness who is at her door during the time a killer would arrive and/or leave, and no-one does.

Because she did not appear at the inquest. Clearly her story was not accepted by the police. There can be no other explanation why she did not appear.

Non appearance = not believed. This is a hard and fast rule that can never change.

c.d.

[caz]

Hello Trevor,

It is simply not enough to say the time and location of Stride's murder were significantly different from the other murders, you need to provide some sort of explanation why those deviations are significant. Did the Ripper have some sort of alarm clock that told him when it was time to kill? If he ventured beyond a certain geographical location did he burst into flames or melt like the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz? Give us a reason why these deviations are significant.

Do you post at the exact same time in all of your posts? If the time deviates by a few minutes, can we assume it is not you but some impostor?

Differences by themselves are not significant. You have to explain why they are.

c.d.

Hi c.d,

Trevor accepts that Robert Napper murdered Rachel Nickell outdoors in broad daylight in 1992, despite the time and location not allowing him to do what he did to Samantha Bisset the following year, in the privacy of her own home. The same killer, in very different circumstances, chose to murder both women, even though he was limited in what he could do to Nickell.

Yet Trevor argues that the time and location of Stride's murder in 1888 effectively rule out the unidentified serial killer, because he would have put limits on when and where he committed murder, according to what he wanted to achieve each time. But no two murders by the same person are ever identical, and time and place would have had a bearing on this - particularly in teeming Whitechapel. Nobody would expect one man to have been able to inflict the same damage on any outdoor victim as he did on Mary Kelly in her room. The amount and nature of the damage would have been dictated to a large extent by time and place, as in the Nickell and Bisset murders.

When asked to explain this contradiction, Trevor puts it down to the Napper and ripper murders happening a century apart, but doesn't explain how that would have any effect on the inevitable differences in time and place between one murder and another.

Maybe I shall call the phenomenon Colin Stagg Blinkers. They do seem to be worn by those who cling like grim death to one suspect, and then fashion all their inclusion/exclusion arguments accordingly, because they can never admit they might be wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Again, I agree with c.d
If the chance of another assailant killing Liz other than broad shoulders was so minimal as to be virtually impossible a senior investigating officer like Swanson, who was there and knew the area, and the denizens wouldn't allow for the possibility that this was an assault/altercation and nothing more. Yet he does.

Regards Darryl

Hmm...then why isnt he recorded in any Inquest documentation. Not a peep.

I do have a problem with having to point out to folks all the reasons to suggest Strides killer wasnt a Ripper...its virtually self evident for god sakes. But just for the jolly.......IF Schwartz was telling the truth then BSM is almost certainly Strides killer, but since we cannot presume he was believed or factual in his account, then the overwhelming conclusion must be that her killer came from that yard or the club. Which makes perfect sense since we have a witness at her door to the street "almost the whole time" between 12:30 and 1am, and conctinuously from 12:50 until 1am, and she saw only Goldstein around 12:55. Again, why people ignore a witness who is at her door during the time a killer would arrive and/or leave, and no-one does.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
He gave a decent description of BS man [ Police Gazette Oct 19 ].
Regards Darryl

Hi Daryl,

Im going by what David Orsam said about Inquest procedures in an article. He said that for Inquest purposes an identification would only have been relevant if Schwartz could have specifically said “the woman that I saw was called Elizabeth Stride.” As opposed to saying that the woman that he saw was the same woman that he’d seen in the mortuary.

[GBinOz]

Hi Trevor,

In your view of the situation I have to repeat my question:

Whatever deliberations are indulged have to include a theory on the whereabouts of Parcelman.

Cheers, George