John Richardson

[Michael W Richards]

In fact, we know he wasn't caught which tells us he was nobody's idiot and that we know he was more than capable of knowing when to go and when to stay.

He would also have learned when to act in the first place, when he felt he could complete mutilations. Like he was unable to do with Polly, and then changed to be successful with Annie.

[c.d.]

He would also have learned when to act in the first place, when he felt he could complete mutilations. Like he was unable to do with Polly, and then changed to be successful with Annie.

Except that things don't always work out as planned especially in murders.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you must have a learning disability, in which case I might feel bad trying to help you understand basic concepts that are apparently beyond your ability to recognize. If you dont, then your problems are even more disturbing.

Let me try and help one more time....(I suspect its of no real use, but..) ...its not good to imagine things happened if there is no evidence that they did ,....its not correct to presume to speak for anyone else unless authorized to do so, a legal proceeding like an Inquest does not ignore evidence that the authorities believe might address the core question it is created to answer, and people exposed to risk of loss do not have the same impetus or foundation on which to make as trustworthy statements as those who have nothing to lose.

No interruption evidence. NONE
No evidence that Schwartz's story was considered trustworthy enough to be used at the Inquest. NONE..except Abberlines opinion, which is still NO EVIDENCE.
Multiples sources state a discovery time that is 15-20 minutes earlier than a story from one person without any secondary verification.

Please refrain from your opinions on what you believe or dont, or whether my ideas are acceptable to you or anyone else, just man up and answer YES or NO to the 3 underlined lines above.

Your opinion means nothing to me or anyone else, but your understanding of what reality is, Im sure, of great interest to anyone who reads your posts. We could keep doing this and you can continue to expose yourself to credibility checks, but why not stop the pablum throwing and just address those three lines please.

I’m going to end my contribution to this because it’s a complete waste of time. I’ll end with a few points.

1. You claim that researchers have reached out to you privately. Why….were they too embarrassed to agree with you in public. Frankly Michael, I don’t believe you. You won’t name them because they don’t exist and I can post a long list of researchers who have completely disagreed with you. I quoted a small list earlier and if memory serves I can add Tom Wescott to that list. Your claim of support rings completely hollow.

2. Then…..”a legal proceeding like an Inquest does not ignore evidence that the authorities believe might address the core question it is created to answer.” You clearly have done no reading on this subject or you wouldn’t have made such a poor point. As has been proven by researchers like David Orsam and others an Inquest isn’t there to solve the case. It has 4 set goals. To identify the victim (and that means by name which Schwartz couldn’t do) To set that day that the murder took place so that it can be entered into the record (something that Schwartz couldn’t do because he didn’t see her being killed). To identify how the victim died ( something that Schwartz could do because he didn’t see her being killed and in any case the Doctor performed this duty) To name, if possible, a suspect (which Schwartz could do) So in terms of the Inquest Israel Schwartz was a non-vital witness. Yes, non-vital witnesses sometimes attended inquests but there is no set criteria and these may have been people who just volunteered to give evidence. David Orsam, who has researched the subject properly and in great depth has suggested around 8 possible reasons why Schwartz wasn’t called but we know that he wasn’t left out because he wasn’t believed because this is provably untrue. We have the police citing him as a witness into November and Abberline very clearly believed him.

3. I’ll respond to your 3 points even though you avoid answering awkward ones.

No interruption evidence…. - As has been explained to you two thousand six hundred and twenty seven times we would not EXPECT to see evidence of interruption. The points you raise are assumptions. That no one was seen running away is irrelevant. This was hardly Oxford Street at midday. It was a quiet little backstreet well after midnight.

A man cuts a woman’s throat…..she falls to the floor as something or someone distracts him…….he immediately stops what he’s doing NOW…..freeze frame and what do we see? A woman lying on the floor with her throat cut and a man just about to scarper. So unless he drops his copy of The Serial Killers Handbook open at the page that’s headed ‘Begin The Mutilations’ then there would be no evidence of his intention. That you refuse to see this, sadly, speaks volumes.

No evidence that Schwartz evidence was considered trustworthy etc….. - I’ve already pointed out your lack of knowledge about the basic aims of an Inquest. The fact that he was believed by Abberline and that he was still being mentioned into November shows that at least some believed him. Either way, it’s a very weak point from you…..even when compared to the other weak ones.

Multiple sources state….. - Two men, Kosebrodski and Hoschberg gave provably estimated times which were at variance with others. Spooner gave two versions the most coherent of which matched exactly Diemschitz version.

And you still won’t accept that there was no such person as Gillen will you?

……..

I’ll finish by saying that I’m not interested in discussing anything with someone that says that I’ve used insults when I haven’t when they themselves have said despicable things like…..


“You are as much of a sociopath as Trump is Herlock.”

or,

“I think you must have a learning disability”

or,

“..your problems are even more disturbing”


And this isn’t the first time that you’ve stooped so low Michael. And I still haven’t reported you.


I’ve said a few things on this forum that I’ve later regretted but none of them have come close to the nastiness of the above (and it’s not the first time that you’ve said this kind of stuff.)

[Elamarna]

Just for the record, Steve I don't doubt Schwartz's story although I do take it with a grain of salt because of the language barrier. I think he simply witnessed a street hassle not a murder and that the B.S man was not her killer but it was Jack who came on the scene later after Schwartz left.

c.d.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one c.d.

[Elamarna]

The reason to dismiss Schwartz is based on pure logic, not anyones fears. As I pointed out, and pardon me for stating the logic is impeccable, IF Israel Schwartz' s story was completely believed by the investigators, not just given some vague "I buy it" from Abberline, (who by the way also used that same position with Hutchinson, whose story is reported later as discreditted), then it would have to be part of the Inquest evidence. It provides us with a victim seen being assaulted within a minute or 2 of her being fatally wounded a few feet away. That is the crux of the Inquest, to determine HOW Liz Stride dies. Not by whom, or with what weapon, just Murder, Accident, Self Inflicted wound,...that kind of criteria.

He is NOT part of that Inquest. So.....?

We will disagree. The logic is not impeccable, it's far from that.

But you are of course entitled to your opinions, but they are ONLY your opinions.

Steve

[c.d.]

We will have to agree to disagree on that one c.d.

No problem. That is what these boards are for. It would be a dull world if everybody agreed on everything.

c.d.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The reason to dismiss Schwartz is based on pure logic, not anyones fears. As I pointed out, and pardon me for stating the logic is impeccable, IF Israel Schwartz' s story was completely believed by the investigators, not just given some vague "I buy it" from Abberline, (who by the way also used that same position with Hutchinson, whose story is reported later as discreditted), then it would have to be part of the Inquest evidence. It provides us with a victim seen being assaulted within a minute or 2 of her being fatally wounded a few feet away. That is the crux of the Inquest, to determine HOW Liz Stride dies. Not by whom, or with what weapon, just Murder, Accident, Self Inflicted wound,...that kind of criteria.

He is NOT part of that Inquest. So.....?

" If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt upon it..." Swanson, 19th October. We don't know why Schwartz was not at the inquest, but it clearly was not because the police didn't believe him. Swanson makes it clear that they did believe him. This was after the last evidence given at the inquest. Fact, not supposition.

[c.d.]

Coroner: Why was the man trying to pull the woman into the street?

Interpreter: He doesn't know.

Coroner: What did the man say to the woman as he was pulling her?

Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

Coroner: Why was the woman trying to resist the man?

interpreter: He doesn't know.

Coroner: What did the woman say to the man?

Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

Coroner: What did the man say to you when he saw you were looking at the couple?

Interpreter: He doesn't know. He doesn't understand English.

Coroner: Was the woman alive when you left the scene?

Interpreter: Yes

And you are saying that this was absolutely vital information that the jurors needed to have in their possession to arrive at a conclusion?

c.d.

[Fiver]

Youre asking me to accept a premise that is not indicated by any of the evidence. There is no evidence anyone was interrupted. No-one was seen fleeing, no-one suggested they came across Liz as her killer stood over her.

No one being seen fleeing is evidence that no one was seen fleeing. It is not proof that Stride wasn't killed by the Ripper.

[Fiver]

Tere isnt even evidence that 1 man killed 2 women in the Canonical Group, let alone a serial killer did them all. Its a theory. Thats all. And its proven to be the most damaging theory to legitimate study of these unsolved murders in the history of this study.

People start their research here looking for whodoneit, not what happened. Patently flawed.

The theory was accepted by the police investigators, medical examiners, and coroners of the time. It is not the creation of modern people looking for whodunnit.

There's room to question whether certain people were victims of the same serial killer, but denying that there ever was a serial killer requires ignoring the opinions of all of the period police investigators, medical examiners, and coroners.

People often fall into the trap of treating the killings as a whodunnit and coming up with the "real" solution that everyone has missed. You appear to be yet another victim of this trap, "solving" the case by saying that none of those women were the victims of serial killers.

There are several distinctive features of the murders.
* Method appears to have been strangulation, followed by cutting the throat.
* No attempt was made to hide the bodies.
* The bodies were posed flat on their backs with their skirts lifted up.
* Postmortem mutilation.
* Trophies were taken from the victims - first possessions, then organs.

Those actions vary from unusual to extremely rare. Combined, they make for a very distinctive criminal signature.

Stride is an exception. Perhaps her killer wasn't the Ripper. Perhaps he was, but he got spooked before he could begin posing and mutilation. Either would explain the lack of posing and mutilation.

[Fiver]

No interruption evidence. NONE
No evidence that Schwartz's story was considered trustworthy enough to be used at the Inquest. NONE..except Abberlines opinion, which is still NO EVIDENCE.
Multiples sources state a discovery time that is 15-20 minutes earlier than a story from one person without any secondary verification.

Please refrain from your opinions on what you believe or dont, or whether my ideas are acceptable to you or anyone else, just man up and answer YES or NO to the 3 underlined lines above.

None of those are questions, let alone questions that can be answered Yes or No.

Herlock and others have dealt with all of these points. You just keep ignoring them.

Herlock has as much right to express his opinions as anyone else. And unlike you, his opinions make sense.

Your repeated insults of Herlock aren't making him look bad.

[Lewis C]

1. You claim that researchers have reached out to you privately. Why….were they too embarrassed to agree with you in public. Frankly Michael, I don’t believe you. You won’t name them because they don’t exist and I can post a long list of researchers who have completely disagreed with you. I quoted a small list earlier and if memory serves I can add Tom Wescott to that list. Your claim of support rings completely hollow.

Assuming that Wescott hasn't changed his mind since Ripper Confidential was published in 2017, it is correct that he mostly disagrees with Michael. One point of agreement is that BS Man didn't kill Stride. However, Wescott believes Schwartz' story, and believes that Stride was a Ripper murder and that she was killed just before 1:00.

[Lewis C]

Fanny did see or hear quite a few things: Leon Goldstein, a cart passing, 'the heavy tramp of a policeman', noise from the club.

And then of course, Brown didn't see Schwartz and associates either. The chandlers shop he went to was four doors from Dutfield's Yard on the corner of Fairclough Street.

Fanny does give us a tantalising piece of information. That being, she went to the door just after the 'heavy tramp' passed. Assuming that was PC Smith, and that's a decent bet, then why didn't she see Liz and Parcel Man (as noticed by PC Smith)? Where had they gone?

PC Smith noticed the flower and stated at the inquest he was certain that was Liz. Obviously, he was paid to take notice of people. PC Smith tells us that Liz and Parcel Man were stood on the opposite side of the street, almost opposite Dutfield's Yard; and so Fanny could not have missed them when she went to her door 'just after' the 'heavy tramp' passed.

I believe that the location that PC Smith describes for Parcel Man is on the same side of the street as Mortimer's house, and if so, she wouldn't have seen them, and it may be that she didn't go to her door immediately after the heavy tramp anyway, but even so, there's a lot here that had to happen in a short amount of time without anyone noticing anyone else. We have Smith seeing Stride with Parcel Man, Schwartz seeing BS Man, Brown seeing Stride with Overcoat Man, all within less than 15 minutes of each other, but not Smith, Schwartz or Brown seeing either of the other two. I think for it all to have happened, the BS Man incident must have happened just after Smith passed, and just before Brown left his house. But in that case, Stride would have had to have moved quickly.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I believe that the location that PC Smith describes for Parcel Man is on the same side of the street as Mortimer's house, and if so, she wouldn't have seen them, and it may be that she didn't go to her door immediately after the heavy tramp anyway, but even so, there's a lot here that had to happen in a short amount of time without anyone noticing anyone else. We have Smith seeing Stride with Parcel Man, Schwartz seeing BS Man, Brown seeing Stride with Overcoat Man, all within less than 15 minutes of each other, but not Smith, Schwartz or Brown seeing either of the other two. I think for it all to have happened, the BS Man incident must have happened just after Smith passed, and just before Brown left his house. But in that case, Stride would have had to have moved quickly.

Regarding Liz being on Fanny's side of the street when seen by PC Smith, where did you get this from? And, even if they were, Fanny would have seen them from her door. The question remains, where did Liz and parcel man disappear to? I'm not convinced Brown saw Liz.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He would also have learned when to act in the first place, when he felt he could complete mutilations. Like he was unable to do with Polly, and then changed to be successful with Annie.

Jack was constrained by the opportunities that were presented to him. He couldn't dictate where women would be and whether or not they were willing to go with him to somewhere with less risk attached. At all of the murder scenes, he could quite easily have been interrupted such was the level of risk he took, and I think that risk was dictated by those locations being more or less the best that was available to him. In fact, I wouldn't rule out that he was interrupted at some of the other murder scenes and may have committed a Mary type murder earlier in the series, if left to his own devices.

You can only assess an option in relation to the other options, and I don't believe there was a number of women floating around who were willing to go somewhere where there was nobody anywhere near them. It was a dangerous occupation.