John Richardson

[c.d.]

You also have to consider the nature of the crime. We are not talking shoplifting or assaulting a P.C. when drunk. This was a brutal murder of a woman. Club members had wives, sisters, daughters. Were they really that eager to make the protection of the club a priority?

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You also have to consider the nature of the crime. We are not talking shoplifting or assaulting a P.C. when drunk. This was a brutal murder of a woman. Club members had wives, sisters, daughters. Were they really that eager to make the protection of the club a priority?

c.d.

Another good point c.d.

And let’s face it, Michael is suggesting that Kozebrodski’s time estimate was accurate. I made the point - how could Diemschitz have undertaken this plot (knowing how serious it what to lie to the police in a matter like this) without ensuring that he’d told everyone “now remember…I found the body at 1.00 and NOT at 12.40…got it?” But it’s worse than that because Kozebrodski actually went with him to look for a Constable! And Diemschitz didn’t tell him about the 1.00 time? Absolutely no chance. No one could be that stupid.

[Lewis C]

I'm not convinced Liz was seen on Fanny's side.

But, let's assume she was:

I think it's unlikely that Fanny went to her door and simply looked straight ahead.

In fact, Fanny tells us that this wasn't the case when she was able to see Leon Goldstein 'look up at the window on his way past'.

I'm not saying that Fanny simply looked straight ahead. I'm saying that anyone looking out of a door or window will have a limited view of the periphery. If you don't believe that, try looking out of a window of your home without opening it. Start by looking straight ahead, then look over to the side to either the left or the right. You will find that at some point, your ability to see outside to that side will be blocked. You won't be able to see outside 90 degrees away from straight ahead. If you look 90 degrees away from straight ahead, you'll be looking at an interior wall of your home.

[Fiver]

And let’s face it, Michael is suggesting that Kozebrodski’s time estimate was accurate. I

According to all accounts, Deimschutz brought Kozebrodsky into the yard to examine the body. If there was a plot to falsify the time, why would they make Kozebrodsky the second person to see the body, but fail to drill him on the "correct" time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to all accounts, Deimschutz brought Kozebrodsky into the yard to examine the body. If there was a plot to falsify the time, why would they make Kozebrodsky the second person to see the body, but fail to drill him on the "correct" time?

Exactly Fiver. If anyone would have been fully aware of the allegedly modified time it would have been Kozebrodsky. The fact that he wasn’t shows that he simply made an error in his estimation of the time. To me this is close to proof. Michael also makes much of the fact that Kozebrodsky was ‘corroborated’ by Heschberg who said that he went to the yard at 12.45…..but he was alerted by a policeman’s whistle, which was probably Lamb after he’d arrived at the yard and seen the body. We also know that Lamb admitted that he didn’t carry a watch. Timing errors were hardly surprising.

Clearly Kozebrodsky and Heschberg were simply mistaken. After all, if you’re told that a woman had been killed your first thought isn’t “ok, but I must confirm the right time first.” How long after the event were these two interviewed? How do we know that the two hadn’t spoken to each other whilst waiting to be interviewed and one of them got their mistaken time from the other?

I might copyright this one Fiver…

Herlock’s Maxim No 1 - “if you find that someone is keen to stick to exact times and is reluctant to accept that timings require the application of a margin-for-error, you can almost guarantee that the person involved has a theory to defend which relies on those times being correct.”

[Fleetwood Mac]

A different knife as been stated by no lesser person than the later Martin Fido, so it seems this is set very deeply.
I suspect "could have been inflicted by s short blade" as at some point been written as "was". Then like so much it simply gets repeated.


Steve

I reckon Dr Phillips makes it clear that in his opinion the knife used on Liz was a short bladed knife. Mind you, he bases that on his opinion of Liz's position when she was cut. He didn't specify exactly how short he was talking.

Dr Brown believed the knife used on Catherine was at least six inches long. Would this necessarily rule out a shoe-makers knife or something of a similar size?

Dr Phillips gives us a clue of how short he was talking in relation to Liz when he stated at Annie's inquest:

Would the knife of a cobbler or of any person in the leather trades have done? - I think the knife used in those trades would not be long enough in the blade.

Was the instrument used at the throat the same as that used at the abdomen? - Very probably. It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.

It's fair to conclude that when Dr Phillips stated: a short, ground blade like a shoe-makers knife, he was talking less than six inches.

The question for me is more one of was he correct in his assessment.

[Elamarna]

I reckon Dr Phillips makes it clear that in his opinion the knife used on Liz was a short bladed knife. Mind you, he bases that on his opinion of Liz's position when she was cut. He didn't specify exactly how short he was talking.

FM, we disagree, I honestly believe you have misinterpreted what Phillips said
I do NOT see he is saying a short blade made the cut, only that a short bladed knife was just as capable of making the wound as the "Coram Knife"
Please let me explain why I think that is.

Coram who found the knife which was presented at the inquest said the blade was a foot long.

Phillips says

"Such a knife could have produced the incision and injuries to the neck, but it is not such a weapon as I should have fixed upon as having caused the injuries in this case; and if my opinion as regards the position of the body is correct, the knife in question would become an improbable instrument as having caused the incision."

He continues

" I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck."

So clearly he is saying the knife produced at the inquest, with a blade of 12 inches is in his view too long.
He does however say that technically the blade COULD have made the cut.

Now the important bit.

He finishes with

" The wound was inflicted by drawing the knife across the throat. A short knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, would do the same thing."

In my view what he is doing here is saying that a short blade knife could also make the wound. I do not believe he is suggesting it did, but that he is pointing out, that from the wound a 12 inch blade OR even short blade COULD equally have made the cut.

He is in my view not stating THAT a short bladed knife made the cut. He is I believe pointing out that any blade from 12 inches to a short blade COULD have made the cut.

"Dr Brown believed the knife used on Catherine was at least six inches long. Would this necessarily rule out a shoe-makers knife or something of a similar size?

Dr Phillips gives us a clue of how short he was talking in relation to Liz when he stated at Annie's inquest:

Would the knife of a cobbler or of any person in the leather trades have done? - I think the knife used in those trades would not be long enough in the blade.

Was the instrument used at the throat the same as that used at the abdomen? - Very probably. It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.

It's fair to conclude that when Dr Phillips stated: a short, ground blade like a shoe-makers knife, he was talking less than six inches.

The question for me is more one of was he correct in his assessment.

Yes, I agree at that point he is saying a short bladed knife would be too short.

What you are missing I believe is that at the Stride inquest, he is presented with a knife that as a 12 inch blade.

He feels, given the position of the body, that at 12 inches long, it would not be the best weapon to use, lack of space.
However, he does not rule it out.
He says it could make the cut.

He then says that a short knife could equally make the cut.

My interpretation of the testimony is that he is saying that you cannot say the long bladed knife made the cut, because a short bladed knife could do the same.

The issue at hand at the inquest was simple, was the knife found in the Whitechapel road the likely murder weapon.
He gives his opinion, that while he believes it's too long to use in the location, it could nevertheless have inflicted the wounds.

He concludes by saying that a short knife could have inflicted exactly the same wound.

I seriously believe people are misinterpreting what Phillips said
As I said, I am working on a presentation on this issue.
It is always interesting how we all interpret information very differently.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was no Gillen. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times.

"I had been there about 20 minutes, when a member named Gilleman came upstairs and said, "There is a dead woman lying in the yard."" - 2 October 1888 Times

Possibly this was Louis Joseph Francois Gilleman, a Belgian wardrobe dealer born around 1857.

I just dug out Ripperologist number 11 which included a short article by Paul Begg called The Mystery Of Gilleman - Solved? Gilleman is undoubtedly the ‘Gillen’ that Michael regularly refers to. More of a mystery is why he can’t simply acknowledge this which leads him to persist in using the name ‘Gillen?’ I suspect that it’s because he once made a claim that evidence exists (in some kind of statement) that shows that ‘Gillen’s’ evidence somehow favours an earlier time of discovery. Michael has been asked an untold number of times to produce this but as yet he hasn’t and we know why. Because it doesn’t exist. There was no Gillen….there was a Gilleman….and he’s only mentioned in this case by Morris Eagle.

The reason that Paul Begg suggests that Gilleman might have been an alias for Diemschitz is down to conflicting reports. At the Inquest Eagle said that he returned from taking his young lady home at about 12.35 and that around 20 minutes later a club member named Gilleman came upstairs and told everyone that there was a woman lying dead in the yard. ‘Around 20 minutes after about 12.35’ clearly ties up perfectly with Diemschitz discovery of the body at around 1.00 of course.

But in The Guardian, Oct 1st, Eagle is quotes as saying: “After I had been in the club 20 minutes the steward came in and said there was a woman lying in the yard.”

Obviously the steward of the club was Diemschitz so this is why Paul suggested that the two names could have been the same man. Paul’s article was written in 1997 so I have no way of knowing if his opinion has changed or whether research has proved otherwise. He also, as an illustration, quotes The Yorkshire Post, Oct 1st, where Mrs Diemschitz is called Mr Lewis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This gives us Eagle and Gilleman both corroborating Diemschutz of course.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is always interesting how we all interpret information very differently.

I agree, it is, Steve.

My interpretation of the testimony is that he is saying that you cannot say the long bladed knife made the cut, because a short bladed knife could do the same.

I looked at it for ages last night and this morning, and based on the Liz statement it wasn't clear to me, but when I read Annie's statement then the balance of probability became clear.

After considering the Liz statement, I think this is the pertinent part:

The wound was inflicted by drawing the knife across the throat. A short knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, would do the same thing.

In my opinion, Dr Phillips isn't saying that a short knife blade would do the same thing as a longer blade, he is saying that a short knife blade would inflict the 'the drawing across the throat' as Dr Phillips imagined it occurring based on his premise of where Liz was situated when the cut took place.

It may be instructive also that Dr Phillips focused on a short blade, as opposed to making a longer blade the operative part of his statement. That should tells us which way he leaned.

And then, when we get on to Annie's statement, we learn what Dr Phillips meant by a short blade and a shoemaker's knife. That being: shorter than the 6 inches he believed was possible with Annie, and shorter than the 6 inches Dr Brown believed was the least sized blade with Catherine's cut.

Either way, I don't necessarily think that Dr Phillips' opinion is that important in this regard. His premise that the knife used was shorter than 6 inches is a premise based upon a premise, as opposed to anything in the cut itself which made it obvious to him. And then, how much store should we place in his belief that because of when Liz was cut and where she lay, a longer blade probably didn't make that cut? Dr Phillips was a doctor as opposed to an expert in the ins and out of knife possibilities given where a body lay. Actually, he doesn't state that a longer blade couldn't have done that, he simply gives his opinion and that leans towards a blade shorter than 6 inches. But then Dr Phillips was clearly a professional, and a reasonable one, who didn't go in for absolutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just dug out Ripperologist number 11 which included a short article by Paul Begg called The Mystery Of Gilleman - Solved? Gilleman is undoubtedly the ‘Gillen’ that Michael regularly refers to. More of a mystery is why he can’t simply acknowledge this which leads him to persist in using the name ‘Gillen?’ I suspect that it’s because he once made a claim that evidence exists (in some kind of statement) that shows that ‘Gillen’s’ evidence somehow favours an earlier time of discovery. Michael has been asked an untold number of times to produce this but as yet he hasn’t and we know why. Because it doesn’t exist. There was no Gillen….there was a Gilleman….and he’s only mentioned in this case by Morris Eagle.

The reason that Paul Begg suggests that Gilleman might have been an alias for Diemschitz is down to conflicting reports. At the Inquest Eagle said that he returned from taking his young lady home at about 12.35 and that around 20 minutes later a club member named Gilleman came upstairs and told everyone that there was a woman lying dead in the yard. ‘Around 20 minutes after about 12.35’ clearly ties up perfectly with Diemschitz discovery of the body at around 1.00 of course.

But in The Guardian, Oct 1st, Eagle is quotes as saying: “After I had been in the club 20 minutes the steward came in and said there was a woman lying in the yard.”

Obviously the steward of the club was Diemschitz so this is why Paul suggested that the two names could have been the same man. Paul’s article was written in 1997 so I have no way of knowing if his opinion has changed or whether research has proved otherwise. He also, as an illustration, quotes The Yorkshire Post, Oct 1st, where Mrs Diemschitz is called Mr Lewis.

That should read ‘Mrs Lewis.’

[Elamarna]

I agree, it is, Steve.

I looked at it for ages last night and this morning, and based on the Liz statement it wasn't clear to me, but when I read Annie's statement then the balance of probability became clear.

After considering the Liz statement, I think this is the pertinent part:

The wound was inflicted by drawing the knife across the throat. A short knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, would do the same thing.

In my opinion, Dr Phillips isn't saying that a short knife blade would do the same thing as a longer blade, he is saying that a short knife blade would inflict the 'the drawing across the throat' as Dr Phillips imagined it occurring based on his premise of where Liz was situated when the cut took place.

He clearly does say " would do the same thing"
He is therefore comparing the short blade to something else, the 12 inch blade, found by Thomas Coram.
He is in my view trying to make it clear that a very short blade, such as the type he had discounted in the previous murder, could have made the cut.
His aim I submit was to exclude the 12 inch blade as the probable murder weapon.

Our interpretation is different.

It may be instructive also that Dr Phillips focused on a short blade, as opposed to making a longer blade the operative part of his statement. That should tells us which way he leaned.

Not at all, the whole of the exchange revolves around if the longer blade was the likely weapon. I humbly submit, you cannot take the last statement without applying the context imposed on the debate by the earlier comments.

And then, when we get on to Annie's statement, we learn what Dr Phillips meant by a short blade and a shoemaker's knife. That being: shorter than the 6 inches he believed was possible with Annie, and shorter than the 6 inches Dr Brown believed was the least sized blade with Catherine's cut..

I have no issue with the statements regarding Annie or Kate. But I think you are misinterpreting what Phillips said at the Stride inquest.

Either way, I don't necessarily think that Dr Phillips' opinion is that important in this regard. His premise that the knife used was shorter than 6 inches is a premise based upon a premise, as opposed to anything in the cut itself which made it obvious to him.

Indeed, there is I submit, no way of estimating blade length from the wound Stride had received.

And then, how much store should we place in his belief that because of when Liz was cut and where she lay, a longer blade probably didn't make that cut? Dr Phillips was a doctor as opposed to an expert in the ins and out of knife possibilities given where a body lay. Actually, he doesn't state that a longer blade couldn't have done that, he simply gives his opinion and that leans towards a blade shorter than 6 inches. But then Dr Phillips was clearly a professional, and a reasonable one, who didn't go in for absolutes.

And that's where we disagree FM, he doesn't say the wound WAS inflicted by a shorter blade in my opinion.

He says that a short blade COULD inflict the SAME wound as the Long blade.
Indeed if a short blade of under 6 inches could inflict the wound , so could a blade of 6, 8 or longer. Indeed if a short blade of under 6 inches could inflict the wound , so could a blade of 6, 8 or longer, which I suspect was the most likely length for the knife/knives used during the murders. I would on my own experience personally prefer 6 - 8 rather than 8 plus.
But that's a professional view, I suspect the killer just used what he had.

It's interesting how we differ over what Phillips meant. Of course we can never know for sure, but I do hope you will have a look at my article on this when it's published.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

but I do hope you will have a look at my article on this when it's published.

I certainly will, Steve.

He says that a short blade COULD inflict the SAME wound as the Long blade.

I reckon that's improbable. Dr Phillips states:

1) Coram's long bladed knife could have done it but unlikely.

2) A short bladed knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, is consistent with that which he believed happened.

Nowhere in between that does Dr Phillips state: a long bladed knife is a decent prospect, not Coram's, but some other long bladed knife.

It follows that Dr Phillips cannot be suggesting that a long bladed knife and a short bladed knife are equally probable. The only mention we have of a long bladed knife is to say that Coram's long bladed knife was improbable. There is no mention of some other long bladed knife which would reasonably able us to deduce Dr Phillips meant: "a short blade could inflict the same wound as a longer blade", i.e. he didn't introduce a longer bladed knife as a decent bet for him to go on and say and so is a short bladed knife. It doesn't follow.

Having said that, Dr Phillips was qualified to give an assessment based on the wound, but he doesn't do that. His assessment is based upon where he believes Liz was situated when her throat was cut. That is moving away from medical opinion and into the realms of detective work. It assumes Dr Phillips is well versed and an authority on wielding a knife other than his surgical instruments.

And, Dr Phillips believed that Liz was a Jack victim. In the event he's qualified to tell us what was possible with various knives in relation to where a body was lying, that he couldn't tell from the wound itself, then he's qualified to tell us whether or not Liz was a Jack victim. Anyone arguing that Dr Phillips' 'short blade' is right can't have it both ways.

I don't think he was qualified to tell us what was possible with a knife that wasn't obvious from a wound by the way, I'm saying that in the interests of fairness Dr Phillips' detective work is either very good or not so good, and in the event people go with Dr Phillips' short knife then they have to go with Dr Phillips's C5.

I reckon Liz was a Jack victim and that Dr Phillips' conclusion on the size of the blade isn't that important, given it is not based on the nature of the wound and ultimately it wasn't based on his sphere of expertise which was the medical world.

[Elamarna]

I certainly will, Steve.



I reckon that's improbable. Dr Phillips states:

1) Coram's long bladed knife could have done it but unlikely.

2) A short bladed knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, is consistent with that which he believed happened.

Nowhere in between that does Dr Phillips state: a long bladed knife is a decent prospect, not Coram's, but some other long bladed knife.

It follows that Dr Phillips cannot be suggesting that a long bladed knife and a short bladed knife are equally probable.

So odd how we read the same words and see very different meanings.

If he had meant a short bladed knife was more likely, then sure he would say that?
Instead he said a short bladed knife would do the "same thing".
He is clearly saying either knife could have inflicted the wound

The only mention we have of a long bladed knife is to say that Coram's long bladed knife was improbable. There is no mention of some other long bladed knife which would reasonably able us to deduce Dr Phillips meant: "a short blade could inflict the same wound as a longer blade", i.e. he didn't introduce a longer bladed knife as a decent bet for him to go on and say and so is a short bladed knife. It doesn't follow.

Yes the whole exchange at that point is about the probability of the Coram knife being the murder weapon. Therefore the comment a short knife could do the same thing, relating to the wound, must be comparing specifically the Coram knife to a short blade.

Having said that, Dr Phillips was qualified to give an assessment based on the wound, but he doesn't do that. His assessment is based upon where he believes Liz was situated when her throat was cut. That is moving away from medical opinion and into the realms of detective work. It assumes Dr Phillips is well versed and an authority on wielding a knife other than his surgical instruments.

I agree, but I suspect the point is there is/was no way of assessing the blade length from a slicing wound, that only went part of the way around the neck.

And, Dr Phillips believed that Liz was a Jack victim. In the event he's qualified to tell us what was possible with various knives in relation to where a body was lying, that he couldn't tell from the wound itself, then he's qualified to tell us whether or not Liz was a Jack victim. Anyone arguing that Dr Phillips' 'short blade' is right can't have it both ways.

I don't think he was qualified to tell us what was possible with a knife that wasn't obvious from a wound by the way, I'm saying that in the interests of fairness Dr Phillips' detective work is either very good or not so good, and in the event people go with Dr Phillips' short knife then they have to go with Dr Phillips's C5.

Agreed

I reckon Liz was a Jack victim and that Dr Phillips' conclusion on the size of the blade isn't that important, given it is not based on the nature of the wound and ultimately it wasn't based on his sphere of expertise which was the medical world.

However, people use the short blade/different knife argument to argue that Stride was not a victim of the killer, and in that respect it is important.

Good to have a sensible and well reasoned debate.

Steve

[c.d.]

Knives were apparently cheap and easy to obtain in Whitechapel. I don't see it as improbable at all that Jack could have had two or more knives. Knives can break or be lost.

The U.S. Navy Seals have a motto when referring to knives: "Two is one, one is none." Meaning knives are so important you should always have a back up.

c.d.