Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Just curious. I never, ever mentioned Baxter in context with that post. So, why did you?
    Given, it was Baxter's decision who was called and his alone, it's glaringly obviously that one cannot assess the reasons for Schwartz not giving evidence without mentioning the Cornoner.
    It is clear the police did not find Schwartz untrustworthy.
    The man in charge on the ground, Abberline saw no reason to question his honesty.
    The man RUNNING the case overall, Swanson saw no reason to question his account and the head of CID, Anderson saw no reason to question it either.

    To suggest that Schwartz was not called because he was not trusted is yet another of these myths( not back by evidence) that is rolled out every so often.
    And it's rolled out because people are not keen to address the issues surrounding Schwartz , other than to simply to reject his account, because it does not fit the ideas they have.
    He may well have not seen the killer, maybe someone did come along after,but I consider that on the balance of probabilities to be unlikely, but to dismiss it, when the police did not leads us nowhere.

    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      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?
      Totally irrelevant, to the question of interuption.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        "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"

        The cause of death is very clear, loss of blood, following the partial severing of one Carotid Artery.

        Suicide can be ruled out, as there was no instrument present which might have been used in such circumstances.

        Her being seen with an known man assaulting her, does not add anything to the cause of death, it might add by person unknown, but that verdict would be reached without such testimony.

        I am sorry Michael, but this really is basic stuff. Your arguments that this or that is the logical explanation for events is in reality just you stating your opinions.

        You don't want the Stride Murder to be by the same killer as the others, I understand that, maybe she was, maybe she wasn't.
        That you are so sure, given the lack of actual evidence is astounding.
        And as I said before, if we question the reliability of Schwart because he was not called, we must also question the reliability of Mortimer.

        What we do know is that the police linked the two murders that night, again maybe they were wrong, but I need serious evidence to support that, not simply a feeling people have.
        We see this from those who insist the killing of Stride was a domestic, attempting to link it to Kidney, but for all the posts suggesting that, there is NOT one ounce of actual evidence to back that up.

        But such is the nature of this subject
        Last edited by Elamarna; 08-18-2023, 02:30 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          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.....?
          HOW is only one of the questions.

          According to the UK government:

          "The purpose of the inquest is to provide answers to 4 factual questions: who the deceased person was; and how, when and where they came by their death. In most inquests the ‘how’ component is taken as meaning “by what means” the deceased person came to die, a question directed to the immediate means of death. At the end of an inquest, the coroner or jury make determinations which answers the four statutory questions."

          Schwartz not being part called to the inquest is proof that the coroner did not think it was necessary. There are multiple possible reasons for this and to say that only one of them is logical and impeccable comes across as egotistical and inflexible.

          Coroner Baxter didn't think it was necessary to call either Israel Schwartz or Fanny Mortimer to testify. You try to use that to prove Schwartz'
          testimony was false. If you applied the same standard to Mortimer, you would say it was "impeccable logic" to dismiss everything that Mortimer said, but you appear to believe Mortimer was completely accurate.

          Or at any rate the parts of Mortimer's testimony that don't contradict your theory.

          Perhaps Baxter didn't think Schwartz and Mortimer's testimonies wouldn't answer the four questions. Perhaps he thought Schwartz was mistaken. Perhaps he thought Schwartz was lying. Perhaps he thought Schwartz' testimony was worth the trouble of bringing in an interpreter.

          The police did think Schwartz' story was worth investigating. Abberline's report indicates that Schwartz was called on to give a statement to the police and giving a false statement gets you in legal trouble. Abberline clearly thinks Schwartz was mistaken in some points, but they also searched the neighborhood for anyone known as Lipski.

          Also, there are newspaper accounts of one man being pursued by anther around 12:45am (1 October 1888 Echo, 2 October 1888 Scotsman). That could be a garbled account of Schwartz and Pipeman. If so, then the Secretary of Club knew Pipeman, though he did not recall the man's name.

          "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

          "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            Quite right, no ripping is that proof.
            No ripping is proof that Stride's killer was not the Ripper or that he was the Ripper, but got spooked before he had a chance to start posing and mutilating the body.

            Your unwillingness to accept a real possibility that does not fit your theory is not proof of anything.
            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              Perhaps they need to revisit the actual evidence in this case. She was likely cut while falling, while her scarf was tight and twisted, and she lay as she fell untouched. That is what is in evidence..
              Sounds like you need to revisit the actual evidence.

              "Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground? - I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                You get what you give Herlock, thats all Ill say on that.

                Then you’re being dishonest. I’ve never said anything remotely like that. How low can someone go but to accuse someone of being a ‘sociopath’ or of having ‘learning difficulties?’

                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.

                I’ll make it simpler as you appear to be struggling with this. I’m not saying, and I’ve never said, that just because an investigator like Abberline trusted Schwartz that it proved Schwartz was telling the truth. What I have said (because it’s clearly true) is that Schwartz can’t have been omitted from the Inquest because the police felt him to be untrustworthy. I hope I’ve cleared that up.

                His story, if fully supported, would have to be either included with and Inquest or specifically withheld for the moment.

                Now THIS is what’s annoying because it clearly shows that you’ve done absolutely no reading on the subject of Inquests. I even pointed you in the direction of a lengthy and deeply researched article by David Orsam on the subject. I’ll repeat….as far as an Inquest goes, Isreal Schwartz was a non-essential witness. No matter how much you think that it doesn’t ‘sound’ right, it’s simply a fact.

                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.

                Rubbish. It’s the opinion of the senior on-the-ground detective. A man brought in for that specific reason. Your treating this as if it was the opinion of some local fish and chip shop owner.

                I am amazed at how many people think they can claim something happened without any evidence it even may have.

                Like you, claiming a plot when there’s no evidence of it. Even if there was something going on it still would mean that your invented plot was legitimate. Perhaps you should consider that just because you can imagine a motive it doesn’t follow that it can be taken to the bank. Especially when the motive is such a non-starter.

                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.

                More evidence that you are deaf and blind to what other people actually say. In an earlier post I listed the reasons for the doubts that I have over Stride murder so you are clearly barking up the wrong tree yet again. Why would I go out of my way to prove something that I’ve openly said that I’m on the fence about. Please read things properly….it would save a lot of time.

                As to timings, Kozebrodski, Heschberg, PC Lamb and the statement of Fanny Mortimer all contradict Louis's stated arrival time.

                Simply untrue. Lamb said he was approached at “about 1.00.” 1.05 for example, is ‘about 1.00.’ Just for your information, when someone uses the word ‘about’ it means that they are estimating. Mortimer’s statement means that she could clearly have gone back inside before 1.00. You are cherrypicking yet again. Kosebrodski and Hoschberg are the only two and BOTH were estimating.

                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.

                About 1.00…..About 1.00……About 1.00…..maybe it will sink in one day?

                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.

                GILLEMAN. There was no Gillen.

                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.

                We have gone over this before and, as usual, you are wrong. You are very good at being wrong. In fact I’d call it your speciality.

                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.
                Point out anywhere where I’ve said anything even in the same ball park as what you said. You won’t be able to.

                Your theory cannot, and is not, taken seriously.

                Comment


                • Steve,

                  I appreciate the tone of your post #3918, so I wont bother going into any argumentative mode. I would just like to say that in my opinion, for it to be taken seriously a belief in something must be founded on something tangible. "accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of​". When can someone feel sure of something? When they have some evidence its worth believing in. Something they can ground that belief with. Religious Faith is closer to what interruption arguments use, without having any tangible proof people who are religious believe in their God...but thats Faith really isnt it? Do people really believe that Liz was killed by Jack and he was interrupted, or do they believe that based on serial killer data that anything is possible so they cant exclude it as a possibility? Well, I say unless there is something to ground that idea in reality, some shred of evidence that would support such a belief,... then all it really does is muddy the study. Like assuming that the Canonical Group is some kind of starting point. I know it isnt, nothing is proven here. There is a theory that one man killed 5 women, so rather than start with that belief, I choose to see whether I can believe that theory based on all the evidence I can find. And as you can tell, I dont believe it.

                  Im comfortable with making some decisions based on having reviewed as much data as I can get. Many are not. Fence sitters abound in this area of study.

                  I personally think that my way is a reasonable way to approach this topic and that logic and reason can help get people off those fences. Maybe Im wrong. Ive sure taken enough criticism here for my manner and methods. But sitting in a car at a 4 way intersection without choosing a direction just isnt my thing.

                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • And to Herlock, the "people" I have mentioned that I have spoken with here on the boards and privately share similar thoughts as mine but prefer not to have to stand here and have mud thrown at them for it. Some write books. Some are just like me, amateur sleuths looking for something real to grasp in these cases. Some are like you, accept the Canonical Group, accepting the serial killer theories from contemporary and modern investigators, and then imagining scenarios based on the Canonical Group/serial killer premise.

                    Id prefer to withhold that kind of blind dedication until someone actually can prove any of it. I see far to much pudding without any proof.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Point out anywhere where I’ve said anything even in the same ball park as what you said. You won’t be able to.

                      Your theory cannot, and is not, taken seriously.
                      Thanks for your opinion. I dont expect everyone to accept it anyway. Nor should you try and speak for everyone.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • What Michael calls “sitting on the fence,” others might call prudence. Or the desire not to claim the unknown as a known. Any old theory isn’t better than no theory.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                          And to Herlock, the "people" I have mentioned that I have spoken with here on the boards and privately share similar thoughts as mine but prefer not to have to stand here and have mud thrown at them for it. Some write books. Some are just like me, amateur sleuths looking for something real to grasp in these cases. Some are like you, accept the Canonical Group, accepting the serial killer theories from contemporary and modern investigators, and then imagining scenarios based on the Canonical Group/serial killer premise.

                          Id prefer to withhold that kind of blind dedication until someone actually can prove any of it. I see far to much pudding without any proof.
                          And yet you show absolute ‘blind dedication’ to your theory.

                          No one has ‘thrown mud.’ This is a forum where people can disagree without resorting to calling an ‘opponent’ a sociopath or by claiming that they have learning difficulties.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            What Michael calls “sitting on the fence,” others might call prudence. Or the desire not to claim the unknown as a known. Any old theory isn’t better than no theory.
                            Any theory that is based on actual data isnt a problem, the problem is when people assume that these boards are not for offering and discussing ideas but rather summarily dismissing ones that dont believe in the Canonical Group theory, or the serial killer theorizing. Prudence is fine, being obstinate isnt. When we have connected just one Canonical murder with just one other then I might believe differently.

                            And please, please stop insisting that your perceptions are universally accepted. Re-read some of your 16,000 plus posts...everyone agreeing with you?
                            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-18-2023, 04:09 PM.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              She was likely cut while falling, while her scarf was tight and twisted, and she lay as she fell untouched. That is what is in evidence.
                              Hi again. Can I ask about your interpretation of Stride's posthumously observed bruising? I have wondered if this might point to Schwartz's report having a factual basis.

                              Thanks.

                              Mark D.
                              (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                Any theory that is based on actual data isnt a problem, the problem is when people assume that these boards are not for offering and discussing ideas but rather summarily dismissing ones that dont believe in the Canonical Group theory, or the serial killer theorizing. Prudence is fine, being obstinate isnt. When we have connected just one Canonical murder with just one other then I might believe differently.

                                And please, please stop insisting that your perceptions are universally accepted. Re-read some of your 16,000 plus posts...everyone agreeing with you?
                                When have I ever claimed that everyone agrees with me on everything?

                                If anyone believes that, in such a short space of time and in such a localised area that Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were killed by 2 different men, then they cannot be taken seriously.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X