John Richardson

[Michael W Richards]

So...on what basis do you question the finding that he wasnt involved in the Inquest? Or is this just another attempt at you being a painintheasstifist.? And provide proof, Ive provided proof that he wasnt. Your turn.

I don't question the finding that he was not involved at all. What I questioned and what I have always questioned is how you know why he was not called. Again, how you actually know as opposed to what you believe the reason was.

And are you simply incapable of an adult response without throwing in a personal insult? Such things can get you banned you know.

c.d.

I didnt claim to state why he wasnt involved, surely that is self explanatory. He had nothing of value to add to the discussion.

[Michael W Richards]

Your original comment, the one we're discussing was this:

When you take Blackwells estimates and Phillips you are left with a cut time that is around the time Israel's story takes place.

Quite clearly, this is not a fair interpretation of that which the doctors stated.

You and I both believe that Liz was murdered towards the earlier end of the possibilities, but to argue that 'we are left with 12.45am' is simply not credible and to be frank it detracts from your argument given that you're bending that which both Dr Blackwell and Dr Phillips actually stated.

As for your above comment which is in quotes, I'm not sure what you're saying. Revisit my post 3809, which outlines what Dr Phillips and Dr Blackwell actually stated. Feel free to reply to those points. They quite clearly leave room for a murder very close to 1am, but there's not a great deal of use in repeating what I stated in that post, unless of course you want to reply to the points one by one.

The other thing I would say, Michael, is that I haven't read your theory nor posts in full but you do get off to a bad start in two respects.

Firstly, you claim that an article written in the A.F. somehow adds weight to your theory. It doesn't. It is the opinion of someone who wrote an article and that person is not an authoritative voice. Fanny Mortimer claimed Louis interrupted the murderer, but you wouldn't entertain the idea that Fanny's claim adds weight to an approx. 1am TOD, and quite rightly.

Secondly, to claim that the medical evidence suggests that 'we are left with a cut time around 12.45' is not a fair interpretation of the medical testimony. It's a possibility but we're certainly not 'left with it'.

I for one, am far from convinced with your reasoning in those respects and that is not a good sign for any other argument you make relating to Liz's murder. I don't think you're being objective.

The AF printed that Liz was murdered around quarter to 1am. How would they know that if no-one came across her until just after 1am. The PC stated that he arrived back at the gates with Eagle just before 1am, so what time would he have left for help then? Issac K says he saw Eagle and a cop with him at around 1am, and he joined them heading back to the gates. So what time did Issac K go out? Remember, Issac syas at around 12:40 he is called to the passageway and sees Louis there. So what time did Louis actually arrive?

I do have a theory about this murder that addresses all the inconsistencies, addresses some of the smaller questions...like how did Liz get the bruises on her shoulder, and why and how did the scarf get twisted tight... and relies on the medical evidence. I havent spelled it out fully because frankly people dont want to learn what happened, they want answers to what they believe happened. Like because they believe Jack did this, he must have been interrupted..for which there is no evidence. And there are no viable truths when you use the statements of men who have zero credibility....(beat police with clubs within 6 months in that same yard..considered anarchists by the law), and zero second hand validation.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The AF printed that Liz was murdered around quarter to 1am. How would they know that if no-one came across her until just after 1am.

They didn't know. It was someone's opinion. That opinion clearly discounted some of the information, such as Louis stating he arrived back at 1am and he knew that due to the clock, and Fanny supporting Louis's 1am time.

You cannot say the A.F. article supports a 12.45am TOD, any more than somebody else can say Fanny's belief that Liz was murdered at 1am adds weight to Liz actually being murdered at near 1am.

Well, you can, but it's not credible.

I havent spelled it out fully because frankly people dont want to learn what happened, they want answers to what they believe happened.

There is a second possibility: they simply do not agree with you.

Like because they believe Jack did this, he must have been interrupted..for which there is no evidence.

'Must have been interrupted' is a stretch I agree, but a decent argument can be put together to suggest Jack was interrupted, evidence or otherwise.

Surely we'd agree that when there are so many people with so many accounts, some of which appear to be contradictory; in such a short space of time, then it's a challenge to account for all of this, and nobody is going to come up with a solution that fits neatly.

That's why I reckon the authoritative voices are more important here, and to me those are Dr Phillips, PC Smith and Louis (in terms of his discovery of Liz's body). I would say Fanny is a decent witness given that we know she was there and at her door. As for the others, I wouldn't rely on them in the same way you do. To each their own, though.

[Michael W Richards]

They didn't know. It was someone's opinion. That opinion clearly discounted some of the information, such as Louis stating he arrived back at 1am and he knew that due to the clock, and Fanny supporting Louis's 1am time.

You cannot say the A.F. article supports a 12.45am TOD, any more than somebody else can say Fanny's belief that Liz was murdered at 1am adds weight to Liz actually being murdered at near 1am.

Well, you can, but it's not credible.


I think that the times given by some of the people there are indeed credible, you just choose to back the dark horse. The AF, published by some of the very people key to this event say she was killed at a quarter to 1. But you know better? No, you just want to straddle a fence. Not me. If you dont look you will not find.

Fanny didnt support Louis's arrival time, she was at her door until 1am, then went inside and a few minutes later came back out. She saw or heard nothing, unless he dropped from the sky with his cart and horse when she went inside. NO-ONE saw Louis arrive. What she heard, footsteps and carts, is what she heard, there is no factual attribution to either of those sounds to anyone.

'Must have been interrupted' is a stretch I agree, but a decent argument can be put together to suggest Jack was interrupted, evidence or otherwise.

Frankly thats the weakest thing youve said in this round. There is no foundation for an argument of interruption unless there is foundation that one may have happened. Man seen fleeing, halted cutting, flipped on her back without mutilations, lots of things might suggest one, but....there is zero evidence so, any argument that tries to use a baseless premise is just not worth the letters typed.

Surely we'd agree that when there are so many people with so many accounts, some of which appear to be contradictory; in such a short space of time, then it's a challenge to account for all of this, and nobody is going to come up with a solution that fits neatly.

I have a pretty decent one actually, that addresses all of this, false and true.

That's why I reckon the authoritative voices are more important here, and to me those are Dr Phillips, PC Smith and Louis (in terms of his discovery of Liz's body). I would say Fanny is a decent witness given that we know she was there and at her door. As for the others, I wouldn't rely on them in the same way you do. To each their own, though.

2 people on your list are worth considering, 1 is a man who provably did not arrive when he says he did, had a primary responsibility for the club and its operation...or should I say, continued operation, and is arrested by police for attacking them with clubs around 6 months later. The man ran an anarchist club. And you back him instead of people with no bad reputation and no reason to lie?

If I ever commit a crime I want you to prosecute.

[Abby Normal]

israel schwartz story dosnt need to be directly corroberated by anyone. its called eyewitness testimony and its totally viable even in a court of law, as it should be. many a killer has had his hash settled by a single eyewitness.

and besides, schwartz story is corroberated by all tje witnesses that saw the killer with the two victims that night in terms of the suspect description, mainly the killer was wearing a peaked cap.

but of course a whacky conspiracy theorist wouldnt understand this, and its pointless trying to debate with them.

[c.d.]

I agree with Abby on this. The fact that Schwartz's story is uncorroborated tells us nothing other than the fact that it was well, uncorroborated. His story could be completely true or it could be completely false or some combination of the two. But simply saying it was uncorroborated as though that was Schwartz's fault tells us nothing.

It would have been nice had fifty people backed up his story half of whom were nuns but we don't have that luxury and simply have to deal with what we do have.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would anyone be at least a tad suspicious if they found that someone who argued vociferously and over-confidently in favour of a theory actually needed it to be true for some reason? Wouldn’t the response be “ah, that explains it”?

Michael has argued this theory for years. As far as I’m aware….no one agrees with him. He is adamant that Stride wasn’t a victim of JTR (he may be correct on that point) but he’s not happy with the acceptance of doubt. No, he tries to prove the unprovable. So much so that he even stated that because there is no actual, existing physical evidence of the killer being disturbed then we should assume that he wasn’t! Who knows what evidence he might expect to have seen?

Question……Why is he so keen to prove that Stride wasn’t a victim?

Answer……Because he believes that Jacob Isenschmidt was guilt of some of the murders but he provably couldn’t have murdered Stride.

Just in case anyone wasn’t aware.

[Aethelwulf]

Would anyone be at least a tad suspicious if they found that someone who argued vociferously and over-confidently in favour of a theory actually needed it to be true for some reason? Wouldn’t the response be “ah, that explains it”?

Michael has argued this theory for years. As far as I’m aware….no one agrees with him. He is adamant that Stride wasn’t a victim of JTR (he may be correct on that point) but he’s not happy with the acceptance of doubt. No, he tries to prove the unprovable. So much so that he even stated that because there is no actual, existing physical evidence of the killer being disturbed then we should assume that he wasn’t! Who knows what evidence he might expect to have seen?

Question……Why is he so keen to prove that Stride wasn’t a victim?

Answer……Because he believes that Jacob Isenschmidt was guilt of some of the murders but he provably couldn’t have murdered Stride.

Just in case anyone wasn’t aware.

'ah, that explains it' - i thought he must have some agenda

[Michael W Richards]

To address the plethora of opinions, first off I do think that Isenschmidt is a good candidate for Annies murder, he matched the description by the Prince Albert pub owners wife, Mrs Fiddymont, as being the man they saw bloodied and acting odd in the pub a few hundred yards down the road from the murder scene, at 7am that same morning. Abberline said Jacob matched the description and was "identical" to the man seen. Jacob had the skills, he was disturbed mentally, and knew the area well. So, yes, I think he is a good candidate for committing that murder.

"Corroborating evidence is evidence that strengthens or confirms already existing evidence. In courts, it is used to support the testimony of a witness". From Cornell Law School.

"With respect to other types of witnesses, accomplices, children who give sworn testimony, and victims in certain other sexual offences the jury must be cautioned by the judge that although they might convict on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, it is dangerous to do so unless their testimony is corroborated."From the Law Reform Commission of Canada.

Corroboration is not a prerequisite to presenting witness evidence, but it is used to validate or strengthen other witness evidence where it is present. In Liz Strides investigation we have both sides of that coin, standalone statements and corroborated ones. In this case the standalone statements come from people that can be proven to have a stake in a negative outcome of the investigation on the clubs continued operation, or people that cannot be proven to have been where they said they were at the time. In the first case, the witnesses belong to a club that was considered an anarchist club, had a very poor reputation with the neighbours who claimed "low men" hung around there long after Saturday night meetings, and men who will be charged with assaulting Police officers within 6 months of the event. In that same yard. In the case of the latter, there is no second hand verification that the witness was there at the time he said he was, or that claimed to see or hear anyone or anything that he claims took place. In the case of Liz Stride, the witness who gave a statement that he was there and saw relevant activity was not asked to present that evidence at the formal Inquest into the victims death. This should indicate to any salient person that his story was not determined to have value in the investigation, despite the fact that he claimed to see the soon to be victim being assaulted minutes before and feet from where she is killed.

We also have statements that have multiple corroboration on both times and actions taken or seen. There is added value that exists when statements are corroborated that standalone accounts cannot, and do not have. All of these suggest timing and actions that are virtually identical. And they are from people with no personal or financial stake in what happens if the club closed.

I have for years suggested that a single cut while falling is no indication at all that the killer is most likely someone who cuts his victims throats twice while they are on the ground unable to resist and then proceeds to alter the position of the body to commit additional mutilation of the abdomen of the victim. There are 4 cases within the Ripper mythology that do have all or some of those elements, Liz Stride isnt one of them. Seems pretty reasonable to me, though many of the people who think only of serial killers running loose seem to think its preposterous.

The corroborated accounts suggest that a dead or dying woman is found inside the passageway at approximately 12:40-12:45, and that a few parties were then sent out in search of the police. 2 of the searchers, Morris Eagle and Issac Kozebrodski, are with a policeman when they return near 1am. A second PC contacted Edward Johnson at approx 1:05-1:10, at which time he contacted Dr Blackwell, then Johnson headed quickly down to the scene himself. Dr Blackwell arrived there at 1:16am, and stated that the woman had been cut "From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. The clothes were not wet with rain. She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed."

Thats what I believe happened. And as it happens that clashes directly with the non-corroborated stories of Israel Schwartz, Morris Eagle on his time and return to the club, Joseph Lave who claimed to be standing there up until around 12:45, and Louis Diemshitz, who insisted he arrived at "precisely" 1am. When I see standalone accounts given by the men who would lose their livelihoods if the club or its members were suspected of this crime and a man who gives a story for why he is there at that time which is not credible, his wife was left at noon to move to a new location and its not reasonable to assume that she was moving anything but some clothes and perhaps 1 or 2 pieces of furniture. They were poor immigrants. He left her at noon and said he returned to see if she had finished more than 12 hours later. We have not been able to determine where he lived before they moved to Brick Lane, but we do know that cottages were occupied in that passageway and he may well have been living in one of them. That might explain why he would be there checking on his wife, but it would also imply a connection to the club himself. In which case ALL the uncorroborated accounts might be from club people who would lose something if the police suspected the club of this murder. These are also the same men who sell a view to the murder scene starting the next day.

So people can now stop claiming they know why I argue points on the Stride murder, and suggesting all sort of nonsense that I have never said or intimated. Im not saying I have solved this case by any means, but I am satisfied that the conclusions I am making are supported within the known evidence and use the value added statements that are corroborated.

So have your serial mutilator who suddenly doesnt mutilate or even attempt to, your witnesses who can be negatively impacted by Police scrutiny and suspicions, and you can have your star witness who is never asked to formally make his statement on the stand at the Inquest. My arguments are based on facts and interpretations, many of yours are based on myths and statements made by criminals.

[Michael W Richards]

The big difference between me and many of you is that I am investigating a number of unsolved murders in London in 1888, you are trying to find Jack The Ripper, a nameless serial killer who you believe killed five women or more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then why does no one agree with you?

[Aethelwulf]

Isenschmidt is a good candidate for Annies murder, he matched the description by the Prince Albert pub owners wife, Mrs Fiddymont, as being the man they saw bloodied and acting odd in the pub a few hundred yards down the road from the murder scene, at 7am that same morning. Abberline said Jacob matched the description and was "identical" to the man seen.

Is there any evidence this guy murdered or mutilated anyone? If not it doesn't add up to much at all. He looked like a someone acting suspciously is about the sum of it. Have you seen the news recently? That bloke Malkinson spent 17 years inside based on nothing more than being picked out of a line up for looking like someone else. There was no evidence linking him to any crime. He had nothing to do with the crime and DNA of another man was found (criminal was found).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another example is this one….

….and Louis Diemshitz, who insisted he arrived at "precisely" 1am.

Naturally this is seen as ‘suspicious’ when it’s nothing more than a slight imprecision of language from someone for whom English wasn’t his first language. He saw a clock as he got to the top of Berner Street which said 1.00 (of course this clock could have been accurate, fast or slow - we have no way of knowing) but from the time that he saw the clock to the time that he arrived at the gates would have been less than a minute. So Diemschitz was simply speaking as if the clock had just struck 1.00 when he saw it. It might have done, he might have seen the second hand. But it might not have done but he made an assumption. It’s a non-point which is considered conveniently suspicious. There’s nothing at all suspicious about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, the claim that the police might have closed down the club because a ripper victim was killed on their premises is about as weak as it gets as the starting point for a theory. That these men would have, on the spot, come up with a plan where they would use a false witness doesn’t hold water. Why didn’t Diemschitz just say that a man pushed past him with a knife in his hand and that he said something to him in English? Why would they have chosen a man that couldn’t speak English as their false witness? How could they or Schwartz have known that some neighbour wasn’t looking out of their window from 12.30 to 1.00 with the gates in full view and saw no sign of any scuffle or of Schwartz? It just doesn’t hold up to the mildest of scrutiny. It relies on simple timing errors by men who were provably estimating.

[Michael W Richards]

Then why does no one agree with you?

Actually I get a fair amount of support from people whose opinions I respect, which is why I dont mind that you dont agree with me.