John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

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".

It's what's known as a circular argument, in that the premise is the evidence for the premise. Dr Phillips does not mention a reasonably possible long bladed knife and so there is no basis to conclude that when he stated: "same thing", he meant the reasonably possible long bladed knife. The only long bladed knife Dr Phillips mentions, implies or infers; is deemed to be unlikely (by Dr Phillips).

A reasonable suggestion would go like this:

1) Dr Phillips more or less ruled out Coram's long bladed knife.
2) Dr Phillips suggested another long bladed knife was reasonably possible.
3) Dr Phillips compared his short bladed shoemaker's knife with the knife mentioned in point 2 and stated 'could have done the same thing'.

The problem is that you're missing point 2 in Dr Phillips' inquest testimony and that is where your article will fall down unless you can explain that glaring discrepancy.

In any and every reasonable conversation whereby you compare two things, you introduce both things into the conversation. Except in this case, Dr Phillips does not introduce the reasonably possibly long-bladed knife. There's nothing in his testimony concerning a long bladed knife that leads to the conclusion 'same thing'. Dr Phillips was a reasonable and educated human being.

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.

Agreed. I reckon that were we to plumb the depths of every possible serial killer that ever existed, we would not find similar wounds across all of their series. It's just an obvious thing because there are so many variables outside of the murderer's control.

In fact, my hunch is that upon examining other cases, we would find that Liz matches up very well with the other Jack victims (by comparison).

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.

'Not sure. We'd get into the realms of did Jack have access to two knives. He had access to at least one, is two a stretch? And, they'd have to show that Dr Phillips' inquest testimony demonstrates that a different knife was used. I don't think it does and Dr Phillips is getting out of his sphere of experience there given that he based his conclusion on something other than the nature of the wound.

Good to have a sensible and well reasoned debate.

Agreed, Steve. 'Look forward to reading your article.

[Elamarna]

It's what's known as a circular argument, in that the premise is the evidence for the premise. Dr Phillips does not mention a reasonably possible long bladed knife and so there is no basis to conclude that when he stated: "same thing", he meant the reasonably possible long bladed knife. The only long bladed knife Dr Phillips mentions, implies or infers; is deemed to be unlikely (by Dr Phillips).

A reasonable suggestion would go like this:

1) Dr Phillips more or less ruled out Coram's long bladed knife.
2) Dr Phillips suggested another long bladed knife was reasonably possible.
3) Dr Phillips compared his short bladed shoemaker's knife with the knife mentioned in point 2 and stated 'could have done the same thing'.

The problem is that you're missing point 2 in Dr Phillips' inquest testimony and that is where your article will fall down unless you can explain that glaring discrepancy.

In any and every reasonable conversation whereby you compare two things, you introduce both things into the conversation. Except in this case, Dr Phillips does not introduce the reasonably possibly long-bladed knife. There's nothing in his testimony concerning a long bladed knife that leads to the conclusion 'same thing'. Dr Phillips was a reasonable and educated human being.

Sorry but we disagree.

I am not sure where the reasonably long bladed knife comes from, there is NO need for any knife other than coram's.
The exchange between Baxter and Phillips is primarily about the knife found by Coram, and could it have been the murder weapon.

While Phillips thinks it's unlikely, his objection to it as you previously mention was that he felt it too long, based on his view of the positions.
However, he accepts it COULD have made the cut.

As you say he makes no mention of any other knife. So he cannot as you again rightly say be comparing the hypothetical short blade to anything other than the Coram knife.

So the comment a shorter knife "would do the same thing", can I submit only relate to the Coram blade, which he's already said could have made the cut.

If he had NOT said the Coram knife could have made the cut, I would agree with you.

I suspect we are looking at this from.slightly different viewpoints.

I interpret his comments as saying that while he does not believe the Coram knife to have been the murder weapon, he accepts it could have made the cuts.
However, he clarifies this by saying even a short bladed knife could have also made the cuts.
In short I see the exchange specifically about the viability of the Coram knife, the short blade being used as an example to say any reasonably sharp knife could make the cut; not that a short blade did.

I think we will not agree on this, but that's fine.

Agreed. I reckon that were we to plumb the depths of every possible serial killer that ever existed, we would not find similar wounds across all of their series. It's just an obvious thing because there are so many variables outside of the murderer's control.

In fact, my hunch is that upon examining other cases, we would find that Liz matches up very well with the other Jack victims (by comparison).



'Not sure. We'd get into the realms of did Jack have access to two knives. He had access to at least one, is two a stretch? And, they'd have to show that Dr Phillips' inquest testimony demonstrates that a different knife was used. I don't think it does and Dr Phillips is getting out of his sphere of experience there given that he based his conclusion on something other than the nature of the wound.

Agreed, Steve. 'Look forward to reading your article.

Are you in fact agreeing that Phillips does not say a differnt knife was used?

Anyway interesting exchange.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sorry but we disagree.


The exchange between Baxter and Phillips is primarily about the knife found by Coram, and could it have been the murder weapon.

While Phillips thinks it's unlikely, his objection to it as you previously mention was that he felt it too long, based on his view of the positions.
However, he accepts it COULD have made the cut.

Agreed in that Dr Phillips accepts it could have made the cut. I don't think this is pertinent to the wider point, however. Dr Phillips was a well educated professional and he knew that he couldn't rule out completely. That's to be expected from him and he was quite right to do that given it was a premise built upon a premise and he was moving away from his area of expertise.

In his testimony, Dr Phillips considered Coram's unlikely long-bladed knife, he then considered a decent bet short-bladed knife, it doesn't follow that he would conclude: 'could have done the same thing. 'Unlikely' and 'decent bet' cannot equate to 'same thing'. Those were the only two knives he considered.

Are you in fact agreeing that Phillips does not say a differnt knife was used?

I'm pretty confident that Dr Phillips believed this was a short-bladed knife and not consistent with the other murders. Having said that, I don't think his opinion in this regard is as important as some others do, for the reasons stated in previous posts.

As you say, 'all very interesting, Steve!

[Elamarna]

Agreed in that Dr Phillips accepts it could have made the cut. I don't think this is pertinent to the wider point, however. Dr Phillips was a well educated professional and he knew that he couldn't rule out completely. That's to be expected from him and he was quite right to do that given it was a premise built upon a premise and he was moving away from his area of expertise.

In his testimony, Dr Phillips considered Coram's unlikely long-bladed knife, he then considered a decent bet short-bladed knife, it doesn't follow that he would conclude: 'could have done the same thing. 'Unlikely' and 'decent bet' cannot equate to 'same thing'. Those were the only two knives he considered.

Its fascinating how we read this so differently.

The fact remains that he actual said

"would fo the same thing"

To me that clearly say he is comparing the two blades and concluding both were capable of making the cut.

I think where we differ is the purpose of the exchange between Baxter and Phillips.
As I said before for me it's about looking at was the Coram knife a viable option for the murder weapon.
Phillips first comment is yes it could have inflicted the wound, he then says it's not the weapon he would choose, because of its length.
He then in my view, in an attempt to demonstrate that being capable of inflicting the wound, does not mean it did, compares a very short bladed, but sharp knife and says that too could inflict the wound.

The "Decent Bet" is not something he talks of, it's an interpretation you apply.

The "unlikely" is based on Phillips, saying it was not the type of weapon he would chose. That he believed it would be too unwieldy in the position for the cutting he suggested.

However, he is looking at this from a professional point of view, it's not the knife he would use, but he is NOT the killer.
The killer would use what is avaliable.

This application of professional opinion by Phillips is also shown on his estimate of how long the wounds on Chapman would take to inflict.

He both case he applied professional standards and choses. Which the killer almost certainly did not.
For my Phillips big failing in all the cases is his inflexible approach, an inability to view the wounds from anything other than a professional standpoint, " How long would it take me?" & "which knife, would I use?"

I'm pretty confident that Dr Phillips believed this was a short-bladed knife and not consistent with the other murders. Having said that, I don't think his opinion in this regard is as important as some others do, for the reasons stated in previous posts.

As you say, 'all very interesting, Steve!

I simple don't see that he believed it was a short bladed knife.

Great debate, but we are going round in circles, and I suggest we will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of Phillips .

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

Its fascinating how we read this so differently.

The fact remains that he actual said

"would fo the same thing"

To me that clearly say he is comparing the two blades and concluding both were capable of making the cut.

This is the crux of where I reckon the reasoning falls down.

In order to understand what he meant by 'same thing', we have to consider his preamble, i.e. what were the options he was comparing to enable him to conclude 'same thing'.

Nowhere does Dr Phillips mention a long bladed knife that he feels was appropriate. The only long bladed knife Dr Phillips considers is one that he felt was unlikely as opposed to appropriate.

It follows that there is no long bladed appropriate knife to compare with the appropriate short bladed knife, allowing him to conclude 'same thing'.

He then in my view, in an attempt to demonstrate that being capable of inflicting the wound, does not mean it did, compares a very short bladed, but sharp knife and says that too could inflict the wound.

The purpose of his statement was clearly not that both knives could have inflicted the wound.

His intention was clearly to say that the short bladed knife was more likely to have inflicted the wound. The fact Dr Phillips does not completely rule out a longer bladed knife does not change the fact that he clearly states that the short bladed knife was more appropriate.

The "Decent Bet" is not something he talks of, it's an interpretation you apply.

He doesn't say it in those words, this is what he states:

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.

It is fair to say that Dr Phillips believed the short bladed knife was a decent bet, otherwise he would have concluded with some other knife when giving an opinion on the type of knife that was used.

For my Phillips big failing in all the cases is his inflexible approach, an inability to view the wounds from anything other than a professional standpoint, " How long would it take me?" & "which knife, would I use?"

I don't see this in Dr Phillips at all, Steve. He's there to give his professional opinion, but he doesn't talk in absolutes. I think that is what is expected of him and the best he could do. Whether his opinion on the type of knife that was more likely, based upon his premise of where Liz was lying, is as valuable as his medical opinions; is another matter. He's getting into the realms of speculating on what is possible with a knife based on where a body is lying and its surroundings, I think he's getting outside of his area of expertise there.

I simple don't see that he believed it was a short bladed knife.

Great debate, but we are going round in circles, and I suggest we will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of Phillips .

Steve

I reckon it was his professional opinion, simply that the shorter bladed knife was more likely based upon his view of Liz's position when she was cut and the surroundings of Liz's body.

Aye, I agree. We're at the point of agreeing to disagree!

Good luck with the article, Steve, when will it be ready for viewing?

[Elamarna]

Agreed in that Dr Phillips accepts it could have made the cut. I don't think this is pertinent to the wider point, however. Dr Phillips was a well educated professional and he knew that he couldn't rule out completely. That's to be expected from him and he was quite right to do that given it was a premise built upon a premise and he was moving away from his area of expertise.

In his testimony, Dr Phillips considered Coram's unlikely long-bladed knife, he then considered a decent bet short-bladed knife, it doesn't follow that he would conclude: 'could have done the same thing. 'Unlikely' and 'decent bet' cannot equate to 'same thing'. Those were the only two knives he considered.



I'm pretty confident that Dr Phillips believed this was a short-bladed knife and not consistent with the other murders. Having said that, I don't think his opinion in this regard is as important as some others do, for the reasons stated in previous posts.

As you say, 'all very interesting, Steve!

This debate as actually been very timely from my point of view FM.

The arguments you have made will now be slotted into my article, and I hope fully addressed.

Probably in Oct, posted on a different forum.


Thank you.

Ps,

had missed your reply,
Yes what was meant by the "same thing" is the crux of the matter.
For me it can only mean what it says.

The preamble is of course essential, and he talks of only one knife.
The issue is I think, that you consider he completely rejects it outright.
My view is that because he considers it possible to have made the wounds, he feels a need to qualify that by saying a short knife coukd do the same.

I see nothing in the wound that would lead him to the conclusion a small knife was used.
His point, I believe is that a blade of 12 inches while possible is very unlikely.

But again we are going around in circles my friend.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

This debate as actually been very timely from my point of view FM.

The arguments you have made will now be slotted into my article, and I hope fully addressed.
Thank you.

Steve

No bother Steve, all the best with it.

[Michael W Richards]

Mortimer wasn't called. Kozebrodsky wasn't called. Heshberg wasn't called.

Yet you accept them and dismiss Schwartz for not being called.

Why would any of those you mentioned be called to give statements about how Liz Stride dies? All 3 only saw her dying in the passageway, they would have no added value to answering the questions that the Inquest addresses. An assault just before a cut would have.

It seems you knew there was a Gilleman, who has been referred to as Gillen in some press coverage, yet you claimed he didnt exist. As did Herlock.

Fiver, once again you post inaccurate statements, Fanny Mortimers statement did not agree with Louis's timing, because as youve been told 100 times, as has Herly, that she was at her door until 1am. When Louis claims he arrived at "precisely 1am", his OWN words, then Fanny should have seen him approaching,...hmm, did she? So, How could she have just missed that I wonder.

I shouldnt expect you or Herlock to understand anything that is posted, clearly you read something, or supposedly read something, then post something that is contrary the data cited anyway. Its clear you cant comprehend some English,..and thats not my ESL issue.

You can pout and spew all you want to, it changes nothing. Multiple witnesses corroborate a time of 12:40-12:45, and Louis says he was sure he arrived at 1, which is provably wrong by Fanny Mortimers statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would any of those you mentioned be called to give statements about how Liz Stride dies? All 3 only saw her dying in the passageway, they would have no added value to answering the questions that the Inquest addresses. An assault just before a cut would have.

No matter how many times that you’re told about Inquests you still plough on posting the same misinformation. Israel Schwartz could NOT have helped in any way. He COULDN’T identify Liz Stride by name because he didn’t know her. He COULDN’T add anything to when she died because he didn’t see her die. He COULDNT add anything to how she died because he didn’t see her die and apart from that it was the doctor who made that call. He COULDN’T have suggested a suspect because he couldn’t name BS man. Please read up on this as you clearly don’t understand the facts.

It seems you knew there was a Gilleman, who has been referred to as Gillen in some press coverage, yet you claimed he didnt exist. As did Herlock.

Why do you point blank refuse to call him Gilleman? And why have you made the entirely false claim that he supported an earlier discovery time when he clearly supported Diemschitz story? Although you appear to be trying to distance yourself from it now…hoping that it will go away instead of admitting that you were making it up.

Fiver, once again you post inaccurate statements, Fanny Mortimers statement did not agree with Louis's timing, because as youve been told 100 times, as has Herly, that she was at her door until 1am. When Louis claims he arrived at "precisely 1am", his OWN words, then Fanny should have seen him approaching,...hmm, did she? So, How could she have just missed that I wonder.

You have no shame do you? You keep on selectively quoting when we have different versions. Mortimer said that she was on her doorstep “nearly the whole time” between 12.30 and 1.00. I assume that you know what the word nearly means? Not all. And that’s not even considering that she said that she’d gone onto her doorstep after a Constable (undoubtedly Smith) passed.

If you ask the question “why didn’t she see Diemschitz at 1.00” (even though ‘nearly’ means that she could have gone back inside just before) why don’t you also ask “why didn’t she see him when he allegedly returned earlier. Your cherrypicking explodes in your face every time Michael.

I shouldnt expect you or Herlock to understand anything that is posted, clearly you read something, or supposedly read something, then post something that is contrary the data cited anyway. Its clear you cant comprehend some English,..and thats not my ESL issue.

Rebutting your arguments takes no effort at all. You do most of the work yourself by cherrypicking and misquoting.

You can pout and spew all you want to, it changes nothing. Multiple witnesses corroborate a time of 12:40-12:45, and Louis says he was sure he arrived at 1, which is provably wrong by Fanny Mortimers statement.

Two witnesses clearly got the time wrong and you base your entire script on it.

Diemschitz is corroborated by Eagle, Gilleman and Spooner. Also, the fact that the police at the time of the investigation saw nothing suspicious (and they would naturally have interviewed the club members plus the neighbours) it becomes clear to all but you that Kosebrodski and Heschberg were in a complete minority in getting the times wrong. So no doubt others corroborated the 1.00 time too. Only a man 135 years later looking for a reason to eliminate Stride so that it conforms to his own preconception would bother using these weak arguments.

Perhaps your phantom (non-existent) supporters might help but I’m afraid that in the real world any honest approach shows your theory to be a complete non-event. It’s never advisable to create a theory to make another theory fit which is exactly what you’ve done.

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps you have an answer for these questions, since you seem to think you have an answer for every problem that is pointed out with your own theories. If Louis arrived at 1, like he insisted he did, then how is it that PC Lamb encountered men running for help...on Commericial street, just before 1? How is it that Spooner, who had left the club at midnight and walked to the spot outside the beehive, where he was for approximately 25 minutes....(in case you need some help, that allows for a 15 minute leisurely walk to that location and then the 25 minutes loitering), saw the men around 12:40-12:45? Right about when Issac K says he went alone for help, then Eagle shortly thereafter, and when Israel says Liz was on the street with 2 men. Seems to me if they are seeking help around 12:45 then it would be for a woman who was already dying in the passageway, not one alive in the street. Why is it that no-one else saw Israel or the men he claimed he saw? How did Johnson get there by 1:10 when by Louis's account, the people sent for help wouldnt even have encountered Lamb by that time?

I think you have a math problem, its not just 2 people who said they were there at around 12:40, its also Lamb saying he came to the gates with members running for help just before 1am. How could that be if Louis was correct? Its also Fanny who was at her door until 1and didnt see any cart or horse coming up the street just before 1. Did Louis have a cloaking device I wonder? How does Johnson arrive there before Lamb would have...by Louis's timing. Im sure youll come up with something inventive.

Its odd that you ignore the majority and support the minority accounts, not sure why you claim the inverse is actually the case but I have some suspicions about your agenda. Its also odd that despite being reminded of all the timings that contradict an initial discovery of 1am you claim those accounts are the majority? Did someone actually see Louis arrive? Did someone see Eagle arrive? Did anyone see Israel..at all? Did Eagle see Lave considering that both men say they were there at the very same time? Was Eagle sure a body wasnt there at that time? Didnt he say "I couldnt be sure"? Did anyone mention that Issac K was sent out by himself around 12:40-45? Well, he says he was. And he didnt see Israel either. Neither did Lave, who says he was standing there until quarter to 1. Neither did Eagle see anyone. No Pipeman, no BSM. But he couldnt be sure a body wasnt there at 12:40.

You dont address the issues with your theory, you dont address the timing inconsistencies and you dont address the most simple of facts that Fanny Mortimer was at her door until 1 and she saw nothing on that street. We know she was there when she says she was, she was the only person to see Goldstein at 12:55...who no-one knew until he came in Tuesday. But Louis was not coming up that street at near 1am when Fanny was standing there. What you do do is pout and bitch about facts that are not what youd like them to be.

Ive compared you with Trump for one very legitimate reason, you say things that are provably wrong and then deny any evidence that confirms they are falsehoods or errors.

Louis says he arrived at precisely 1, his horse shied, he got down and lit a match to see whats what, then went in to see if his wife was ok. He then summoned people to the passageway, and he and Eagle went for help. Right? How is it then that Johnson heard about this between 1:05 and was there at 1:10? If Louis arrived at 1, did what he said, then went down to the passageway to send Eagle for help and then himself, wouldnt that be around 5 minutes? Then 5-10 minutes looking for help? Then how did Johnson know about it already by 1:05-1:10 and get there before Blackwell at 1:16?...they hadnt even found Lamb who advised Eagle to go for help when he arrived at the gates..in his words, just before 1am? Johnson would not even of heard about this until Lamb had first been found on Commercial Street, went to the site, and then Eagle was sent to report it. So, in your story, just how long did it take for Louis to go inside, summon help, go back down to the passageway, then send Eagle and then Eagle who finds Lamb on Commercial street? Lamb says it was just before 1, which means Eagle HAD to have left for help before then, right? I cant imagine what youll come up with to counter this, Im sure it will just be some trash talk and not one decent explanation.

Oh, and its Eagle who mentions Gilleman, but nevermind that, you think he just fictional anyway. If this Gilleman did exist, and Eagle said Gilleman called upstairs around 1, then how did Louis first discover Liz at 1? Was this Gilleman already in the passageway? There are gaping holes and bold contradictions to majority of the timings given by Louis and Morris.

Please, for the people following this...lets hear your story and who you think had wrong timing. PC Lamb? Johnson? Blackwell? Spooner? Kozebrodski, Heschberg? Fanny?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And this is the problem. You take every estimated time as being exactly correct. You also quite deliberately ignore what everyone else understand, that clocks and watches weren’t all synchronised. It’s simply ridiculous to suggest otherwise. We need to approach this as adults.

Lamb didn’t just say ‘just before 1.00.’ This is an example of your selective quoting. In other reports he said ‘around 1.00.’ We do know however that Lamb didn’t have a watch so he either saw a clock when the men got to him (in which case we have no way of knowing it’s accuracy) or he’d seen a clock earlier and estimated the gap of time between seeing it and seeing the men (therefore we not only gave the issue of the clocks accuracy but also his estimate of the gap of time to consider) If you wish to assume that all clocks and watches were accurate and perfectly synchronised that’s up to you but the rest of us prefer the real world.

I will not respond to you repeating the lie that Fanny Mortimer said that she was on her doorstep until 1.00. She didn’t say that and you know it. Also you ignore the fact that she said that she went on her doorstep just after a Constable passed. This was Smith. End of story.

As for Spooner. How many times do we have to go over his nonsensical testimony. He begins by saying that he was outside The Beehive between 12.30 and 1.00. So he’s fairly clueless as to the starting point of his estimation….great start. Then we get “The only means I had of fixing the time was by the closing of the publichouses. I stood at the top of the street for about five minutes, and then 25 minutes outside the publichouse. I should say it was about 25 minutes to 1 when I first went to the yard.” Yeah, I really rock solid way of estimating the time. He could have seen people leaving the pub late and assumed it was closing time (12.00) who knows? What we do know though was that he said: “I stood there about five minutes before a constable came.”

This Constable was clearly Lamb. And what did Lamb say at the Inquest? “About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road…” exactly the kind of precision timekeeping that you rely on Michael.

So Lamb gets there sometime just after 1.00 and Spooner got there approximately 5 minutes before him. Tying up nicely with what Diemschitz said.

So that’s Diemschitz corroborated by Eagle and Gilleman and then Spooner backed up by his sighting of Lamb.

Every single silly point that you have made over the years has been answered on here multiple times by multiple posters but we are wasting our time aren’t we? You absolutely NEED this fantasy to be true so you’ll never admit that you’ve got this hopelessly wrong. I’ll repeat Michael…..no one agrees with you. If people had agreed with you as you claim they wouldn’t be afraid (or more likely embarrassed to come forward with their support) but no one ever does.

FrankO did a timeline as did Jeff. Both highly sensible posters. If we accept a reasonable, minimal margin-for-error in timings there’s not a single issue. Anyone claiming that we shouldn’t allow a margin-for-error gives up the right to be taken seriously on any issue to do with Victorian crime.

The motive for the ‘plot’ is just too silly for words.
The ‘plot’ itself would shame a toddler.
It’s execution would have embarrassed Laurel and Hardy.
And the lengths that you’ve gone to over the years to defend it are simply staggering.

There was no plot.

[Fiver]

It seems you knew there was a Gilleman, who has been referred to as Gillen in some press coverage, yet you claimed he didnt exist. As did Herlock.

You are outright lying about what Herlock and I said.

We have repeatedly said there was a man named Gilleman. There was no Gillen.

"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?’" - Herlock

"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' - Fiver

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are outright lying about what Herlock and I said.

We have repeatedly said there was a man named Gilleman. There was no Gillen.

"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?’" - Herlock

"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' - Fiver

This is what you are up against on this topic Fiver. It’s a bit like the Lechmere stuff where some posters (not all) will go to any lengths to defend a theory.

[Fiver]

Fiver, once again you post inaccurate statements, Fanny Mortimers statement did not agree with Louis's timing, because as youve been told 100 times, as has Herly, that she was at her door until 1am. When Louis claims he arrived at "precisely 1am", his OWN words, then Fanny should have seen him approaching,...hmm, did she? So, How could she have just missed that I wonder.

You ignoring facts doe not make them go away. You misquoting sources doesn't make your theory right.

Fanny Mortimer's account does not contradict Lewis Diemschutz' stated arrival time.

"A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact. The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time. Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband." - 1 October 1888 Evening News.

"Mrs. Mortimer, living at 36, Berner-street, four doors from the scene of the tragedy, says: I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual." - 1 October 1888 Evening News.

[Fiver]

Perhaps you have an answer for these questions, since you seem to think you have an answer for every problem that is pointed out with your own theories. If Louis arrived at 1, like he insisted he did, then how is it that PC Lamb encountered men running for help...on Commericial street, just before 1?

You ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.

"Constable Henry Lamb, 252 H division, examined by the coroner, said: Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running towards me and shouting." - 3 October 1888 Daily Telegraph.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, who said: At about one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road between Christian-street and Batty-street, when two men came running to me, shouting." - 3 October 1888 Daily News.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb said that on Sunday morning when he was in Commercial-road, at about 1 o'clock, two men came to him shouting out that there had been another horrible murder." - 6 October 1888 East London Advertiser.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, deposed - About one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running to me shouting something.' - 3 October 1888 Morning Advertiser.

"Police-constable Henry Lamb, 252 H, deposed as follows: - About 1 o'clock, as near as I can tell, on Sunday morning I was in the Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street. Two men came running towards me." - 3 October 1888 Times.

Four accounts say "about" One account says "before".

Why should we assume that one paper got it right and four papers got it wrong?

This has been posted before. Your failure to even attempt to answer shows how weak your position is.