John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

believes that Stride was a Ripper murder and that she was killed just before 1:00.

It would be interesting to hear an assessment of the medical evidence for a 'just before 1am' murder.

We could go 'round the houses on who saw whom until the cows come home, the medical evidence may be more instructive here.

'Not saying the medical evidence rules that time out.

Dr Blackwell tells us that Liz would have bled to death 'comparatively slowly', unfortunately Dr Phillips doesn't comment that.

In the event Louis interrupted Jack, then the situation is that the cut to Liz's throat would have taken seconds. It's a fair bet that Jack's next step would have been a second cut to the throat, but he didn't have time. It follows that Jack had only just cut Liz's throat prior to Louis arriving. We're talking seconds here between cut and Louis arriving.

Is it possible that in those seconds Liz bled to death? Dr Blackwell appears to rule that out.

And, Dr Phillips described the cut as 'the partial severance of the carotid artery'.

Just out of interest, there was an ice hockey player who had his carotid artery almost completely severed by a teammate's skate around 2008. That ice hockey player didn't immediately pass out. In fact, he skated three quarters of the ice after the accident. At that point they were able to put a towel on it and stop the blood flow. The point here is that even without assistance, I don't think it should be taken for granted that Liz would have been rendered unconscious immediately.

It follows that a Louis interruption scenario may well have found a gargling, spluttering Liz, except he didn't find that.

We could do with an assessment of the medical from someone who is well versed in carotid arteries and the like.

[Elamarna]

No interruption evidence. NONE

You say no evidence of interuption, that is a very subjective statement.

Firstly what exactly would count as evidence of interuption?

Such of course might vary dependent on the timing of any interuption. late during the attack it might look like Nichols; early might well look just like this.

Not only is this a weak argument you present, it's a non argument without further clarification.

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.

Factually incorrect.
Not only Abberline. But Anderson and Swanson apparently accepted his account.

Certainly they did not it seems at any point consider it unreliable. Indeed Anderson appears to be under the apparently mistaken idea that he gave evidence.

But, you say the views of the senior police are not evidence. Here of course we have the argument over what is evidence?

Abberline based his view on being present at the interview of Schwartz, that Schwartz would not be shaken from his account.

That for many, not you is a form of evidence.

If we are going to say that not being called for the inquest indicates the witness was seen as untrustworthy, then we must also apply that to the comments of Mortimer.

For the coroner to rule a witness account untrustworthy, before an inquest, he must either be relying on the opinion of the police, or he must have interviewed the said Witness himself.

The first is clearly not the case, and to quote you, there is "NO EVIDENCE" that Baxter interviewed Schwartz "NONE"

Why Neither of the above were called is of course interesting, it in no ways tells us if the account was believed or not.

The "logic" in your argument is flawed, it makes many assumptions, and portrays them as fact.
It is always our assumptions that lead us to fail.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

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.)

You get what you give Herlock, thats all Ill say on that. There is no emphasis for the Inquests of that place and period to help identify possible suspects. I didnt mention that it was to identify the victim and approximate time of death, so you are correct to add those. When you quote investigators that stated they believed Schwartz that is legally worth zero without some tangible proof he was anything more to the investigation than just another witness statement. His story, if fully supported, would have to be either included with and Inquest or specifically withheld for the moment. Either way, we would see evidence that aside from some opinions given later on, the ongoing investigation considered his story important. We see neither of those. Abberline also stated that he believed George Hutchinson, whose story is reported as discredited within days. Sure, later on Abberline says he believed him, but that and $2.00 canadian will buy you a coffee. An opinion isnt proof of broad belief, its one persons.

I am amazed at how many people think they can claim something happened without any evidence it even may have. So you arent alone in your insistence that an interruption can be claimed or presumed without the slightest bit of evidence that it did. The ONLY reason people use that nonsense here is because without an interrupted "Jack", there is no indication that Jack was involved at all. It is done to support a belief thats why the ripper didnt rip on Berner street. Self serving and illogical argument, but so be it. Believe what you want.

As to timings, Kozebrodski, Heschberg, PC Lamb and the statement of Fanny Mortimer all contradict Louis's stated arrival time. In the case of PC Lamb who was mandated to track his times, he saw men on Commercial before 1am. How did that happen I wonder when as you believe the body was only discovered at 1 and men wouldnt have left for help until minutes later. But again, Im tired of pointing out what is recorded and available to you. Gillen is someone that is mentioned, he has not been indetified and he wasnt interviewed, so dont bother denying that name was mentioned in conjunction with the discovery. Spooner does not corroborate Diemshitz times, he estimates how long he was at the Beehive before seeing 2 men. I of which was not Issac K, according to Issacs own statement. He left around 12:40-12:45..."at Mr Diemshitz or some other members" behest.

As far as insults go, please dont play coy, re-read some posts you made and the responses others have given you. You get what you give.

[Michael W Richards]

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

c.d.

Seems like he accomplished exactly what he intended with Annie, I guess he must have forgot how well that worked.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Thanks for weighing in on what you deem as reasonable and logical. Schwartz's absence is glaringly obvious, the reason why he isnt called is up for grabs. But suggesting that omission doesnt suggest a lack of confidence in his story, as was indicated in the press, is just denial.

[Michael W Richards]

" 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.

As Ive said,stating belief is worth nothing when it isnt supported by actions. Have you read all the materials on these cases? You get various opinions from all the investigators...killer was caught and institutionalized, he was never identified, Chapman did it, Ostrog.. who was in jail... is a strong suspect, he was someone with medical knowledge and knife skills, he had no knowledge or knife skill, he committed suicide after Mary, he went back the US, the truth is a Hot Potato, ....since you and seemingly many others put such weight on Investigators voiced opinions, you must be struggling to figure out what the hell was going on there. Opinions are not proof of anything.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Quite right, no ripping is that proof.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Thats where we differ Fleetwood. I think that the first murder this Jack fellow did, Polly Nichols, was a rash move and a disappointment to the killer. I DO see evidence of a possible interruption in that case by the way. In Annies case the medical opinion is that he completed what he had intended to do, "no meaningless cuts". I think the impulse he followed with Polly taught him that he wasnt going to get to do what he wanted unless he was selective with who he chose, and where he started his attack. Poly was inebriated, Annie was ill. I believe those factors were considered when he chose them. As was the location, like in the case of Annie.

Women were still walking the streets that Fall, some had no choice but to. So he would have had access to street women all through that period in time. They were the ones who chose the spot to have sex, they were their own worst enemy in that regard. They led he followed. So in Berner Street you believe he was satisfied with a location that at any time could be seen by club people, people on the street, people in the yard, the passageway, the people awake in the cottages, with a kitchen door ajar and open window above? You really think the man who killed Annie would decide that was a good spot to start? Since Liz was sober and presumably healthy that would also present a challenge that he hadnt encountered yet.

2 women in the CG were not subdued to some kind of unconscious co-operation before they received the first cuts. 1 was Liz.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Giving an answer that defies logic and is counter to the record isnt "dealing" with anything. Its a refusal to acknowledge a point being made.

[Michael W Richards]

The first is clearly not the case, and to quote you, there is "NO EVIDENCE" that Baxter interviewed Schwartz "NONE"

Just curious. I never, ever mentioned Baxter in context with that post. So, why did you?

[Michael W Richards]

One last point on this interruption theorizing, if a member here, or a witness there, said that he believed she must have cut her own throat, would that be given any credence at all considering that the physical evidence here doesnt show anything that resembles evidence of that happening?

[Mark J D]

Might the tramp of boots Fanny heard be him [Issac K] seeking the police around 12:45?

Hi Michael. Just pondering the above...

Didn't beat cops walk at a specific speed and have boots with wooden soles? If so, surely Issac K would have made a noticeably different aural impression as he hurried along?

Genuine query!

Mark D.

[Elamarna]

Thanks for weighing in on what you deem as reasonable and logical. Schwartz's absence is glaringly obvious, the reason why he isnt called is up for grabs. But suggesting that omission doesnt suggest a lack of confidence in his story, as was indicated in the press, is just denial.

NO, it's an unbias assesment of the situation, unlike the one you are presenting.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael. Just pondering the above...

Didn't beat cops walk at a specific speed and have boots with wooden soles? If so, surely Issac K would have made a noticeably different aural impression as he hurried along?

Genuine query!

Mark D.

Police boots traditionally had hard soles, as did any mans working boot of that period. But some police around this time were fashioning rubber to the soles of their boots to avoid that very thing..being heard. But yes, they did track walking speed by their times.

I do find it relevant that the time that Fanny says she heard that sound corresponds with the approximate time Issac K says he was sent out. He said he was called to the passageway 10 minutes after he arrived back at the club, which he said was at 12:30. He specifically names Louis as being there at that same time.

[Michael W Richards]

NO, it's an unbias assesment of the situation, unlike the one you are presenting.

Steve

"The most formal document produced by a coroner following the legal examination of the cause of death was the inquest itself. This was a parchment document with a brief statement of the verdict of the inquest on one side. This might include verdicts such as chance medley or felo de se (accidental death in self defence or suicide), or it could include any number of more obviously descriptive causes of death such as manslaughter, drowning, fever, etc. The name of the victim will also normally appear here, and the parish in which they died."

In that definition isnt Cause of Death specifically cited? Would a witness statement that suggests the victim was seen with someone just before the estimated time of death and was being assaulted then be pertinent to establishing a likely cause of death? Just checking.

"A coroner must hold an inquest if:

• the cause of death is still unknown
• the person might have died a violent or unnatural death
• the person might have died in prison or police custody"