John Richardson

[Michael W Richards]

We see that it says “It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o’clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman….” The only passing policeman was Smith who said that he passed at 12.30/12/35. So she could have gone onto her doorstep just after 12.30 and stayed there for around ten minutes meaning that she went back inside just before 12.45.

Basically what is likeliest? Schwartz lied about being in Bucks Row as part of a conspiracy created because club members felt that the police might close them down for hosting a ripper murder……..or, Mortimer just missed the Schwart by a very few minutes?

And we get this because a couple of witnesses Kosebrodski and Hoschberg estimated times incorrectly. If there was a plan wouldn’t Diemschitz have made sure that they got their stories straight. Why were those two told about the ‘amended times?”

So we have 3 plausible options.

1. Diemschitz interrupted the killer.
2. Something else disturbed the killer before he arrived.
3. It wasn’t the ripper and the killer simply cut her throat and left.

All far more plausible than an imagined plot with the weakest possible motive.

Fanny heard what she associated with "the heavy tramp of a policeman". That does not mean that she heard a policeman, only that the boots that she heard reminded her of that sound.

I know you like to presume everyone else had their times wrong so that a statement by Louis can be accepted, but life and investigations dont work with those kinds of broad assumptives. If we have many people saying the same thing and times, and 1 saying something different, the probability is that the single account is incorrect, not the majority of them. The majority of statements taken by witnesses that night indicate a discovery time that is 15-20 minutes before Louis says he even arrived. Its after the first PC on the scene says he arrived, with Eagle. So the PC is also wrong? Im sure you must be recognizing by now that you are trying to promote Louis's timing despite the fact that many people stated a much earlier time, and Issac K says he saw Louis in the passageway by the body around 12:40.

And one last point, a Ripper rips, thats why the nickname was given to Annies killer. Its a known, established, characteristic of that killer. You cant just explain away that fact like you try to do with Louis's conflicting timing. There was no indication at all that the killer of Liz had further intentions with her. She lay as she dropped, and was untouched. No rip, no ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And one last point, a Ripper rips, thats why the nickname was given to Annies killer. Its a known, established, characteristic of that killer. You cant just explain away that fact like you try to do with Louis's conflicting timing. There was no indication at all that the killer of Liz had further intentions with her. She lay as she dropped, and was untouched. No rip, no ripper.

I can’t for the life of me see how you can persist with this point. About 200 people have told you that it makes no sense but on you go. If a killer intends to mutilate but is disturbed at the point that he cuts the throat we could expect to see absolutely no evidence of an intent to mutilate.

You really should let this point go Michael.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And one last point, a Ripper rips, thats why the nickname was given to Annies killer. Its a known, established, characteristic of that killer. You cant just explain away that fact like you try to do with Louis's conflicting timing. There was no indication at all that the killer of Liz had further intentions with her. She lay as she dropped, and was untouched. No rip, no ripper.

This doesn't follow.

We know that Peter Sutcliffe was interrupted and that prevented him from mutilating in some cases and killing in other cases.

[c.d.]

This doesn't follow.

We know that Peter Sutcliffe was interrupted and that prevented him from mutilating in some cases and killing in other cases.

And in some instances, it was simply his own mind generated paranoia. No actual interruption was needed.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And in some instances, it was simply his own mind generated paranoia. No actual interruption was needed.

c.d.

And even though it would have been expected that he would have gone on to do more he would have left no physical evidence of it.

[Michael W Richards]

Youre asking me to accept a premise that is not indicated by any of the evidence. There is no evidence anyone was interrupted. No-one was seen fleeing, no-one suggested they came across Liz as her killer stood over her. If there was an adjustment made to Liz as she lay there, sure..thats a possible interruption. If we see a cut made that seems to indicate it was abruptly halted, sure..again interruption was possible. You expect me to just go along with a premise that is not indicated by any evidence and is contrary to an established pattern of a killer just because other people accept it? And you insult me when I dont? Mind boggling.

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. The way some of you, particularly Herlock, like to imagine scenarios that have no substantive evidence for their support is kind of confusing to me. Why are you creating scenarios that are not indicated as being something driven by the evidence? Like throwing away all the many contrary accounts to support 1 singular account, in the case of Louis. Its bizarre really.

Herlock, you need to revisit what you continually propose as the most likely, or probable answers to questions. When you have no evidence of something, it doesnt then become the most probable or likely answer. When you have multiple people saying something that is validated by each others account, accepting a singular account that disagrees with them all isnt rational when in search of an answer, its trying to manipulate the data so it agrees with what you choose to believe. What you and others criticize me for are opinions that ARE based on the existing evidence. Whether they are correct is a valid question, but at least they are based on real values, not imagined.

[Michael W Richards]

The overarching truth about the Whitechapel Murders is that no-one knows why they happened, whether they were by one or a few different culprits, or who may be guilty of one or more of them. You only have whats there friends, forget imagining interruptions so you can claim its a Ripper killing. Forget the idea that you can dismiss the preponderance of some evidence for something in favour of a singular, contradictory remark. And forget the notion that by citing serial killer data taken in 20th and 21st century interviews or investigations of a killer you can justify imagining things to fit into those same molds. There isnt even evidence that 1 man killed 2 women in the Canonical Group, let alone a serial killer did them all. Its a theory. Thats all. And its proven to be the most damaging theory to legitimate study of these unsolved murders in the history of this study.

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

[Elamarna]

You miss the most obvious, the killer is BS man, he is NOT aware of Schwartz before he attacks Stride, on becoming aware of Schwartz and Possible Pipeman, he simply silences Stride, and walks away.
It is, Schwartz, I argue who causes him to flee. Thinking he will be caught in a few minutes.

Hello Steve,

I think there are a few problems with that scenario. Stride wasn't found on the street where she was seen by Schwartz but back in the yard. But why kill Stride after being seen by two witnesses when at that point he was only guilty of shoving a woman?

c.d.

Exactly where the attack took.place is of course open to debate. One report say pulled onto street, the other pushed back.
And this of course is only the beginning of that attack, where it finished we do not know.

Why kill?
Partly to shut her up, and partly maybe just because he wanted too.

Why people are prepared to simply reject the Schwartz account is beyond me.
Actually it's not, I suspect it's because some do not like where it might lead.

That Abberline still believed Schwartz after the inquest, is I think the most important comment from Abberline during the entire case.
But others will of course disagree

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Youre asking me to accept a premise that is not indicated by any of the evidence. There is no evidence anyone was interrupted. No-one was seen fleeing, no-one suggested they came across Liz as her killer stood over her. If there was an adjustment made to Liz as she lay there, sure..thats a possible interruption. If we see a cut made that seems to indicate it was abruptly halted, sure..again interruption was possible. You expect me to just go along with a premise that is not indicated by any evidence and is contrary to an established pattern of a killer just because other people accept it? And you insult me when I dont? Mind boggling.

I haven’t insulted you so don’t start playing the victim card Michael. People leave locations without being seen. This isn’t science fiction it’s a perfectly normal occurrence. You point makes no sense and you have to be the only person that can’t see it. I’ll say it one last time then I’m not going to waste anymore time on this silliness. Killer cuts Strides throat….at that point something disturbs him….he leaves.

No evidence of an intent to mutilate could exist in that scenario.

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.

The way some of you, particularly Herlock, like to imagine scenarios that have no substantive evidence for their support is kind of confusing to me. Why are you creating scenarios that are not indicated as being something driven by the evidence? Like throwing away all the many contrary accounts to support 1 singular account, in the case of Louis. Its bizarre really.

How can you say this when you’ve created this plot scenario on absolutely no evidence at all. Simply two men incorrectly estimating a time and from them you’ve woven a fantasy. Then you’re amazed the everyone else disagrees with you and not for a second do think “hold on….perhaps everyone else is right and I’m wrong.”

Herlock, you need to revisit what you continually propose as the most likely, or probable answers to questions. When you have no evidence of something, it doesnt then become the most probable or likely answer. When you have multiple people

Stop saying ‘multiple’ Michael. It’s two. Hoschberg and Kozebrodski. And I see from an earlier post you are still talking about this imaginary Gillen bloke. There is no person associated with this case called Gillen. Not one. So before you keep on preaching perhaps you could try getting your facts right. You’ve been told this numerous times be me, Frank, Jeff, David Orsam and numerous others.

There is no Gillen!

saying something that is validated by each others account, accepting a singular account that disagrees with them all isnt rational when in search of an answer

And neither is assuming something as a fact just because two people say it. One of whom might have got it from the other for all we know.

, its trying to manipulate the data so it agrees with what you choose to believe.

That’s like being called a disrespecter of women by Ted Bundy. You constantly twist the evidence to make your theory ‘fit.’

What you and others criticize me for are opinions that ARE based on the existing evidence. Whether they are correct is a valid question, but at least they are based on real values, not imagined.

Schwartz is a valid witness. Excuse me if I go for Abberline’s opinion over yours.

Your whole plot is imagined. Anyone that will not accept that timings in this case have to be considered with a margin for error is not worth continuing with. You invent witnesses, assume every error to be sinister, you cherrypick statements, twist evidence and all because you are so entrenched in your Isenschmidt theory that you can’t see the wood for the trees. You’ve created this plot solely to keep Isenschmidt in the game and for no other reason.

No one agrees with your plot. It never happened. I’d rate it about 5 or 6 steps down from Trevor’s sanitary towel theory and just above Stephen Knight (just about). Aren’t you tired of the embarrassment at haven’t to be told that you’re wrong by just about every Ripperologist on the planet?

[c.d.]

Exactly where the attack took.place is of course open to debate. One report say pulled onto street, the other pushed back.
And this of course is only the beginning of that attack, where it finished we do not know.

Why kill?
Partly to shut her up, and partly maybe just because he wanted too.

Why people are prepared to simply reject the Schwartz account is beyond me.
Actually it's not, I suspect it's because some do not like where it might lead.

That Abberline still believed Schwartz after the inquest, is I think the most important comment from Abberline during the entire case.
But others will of course disagree

Steve

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

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly where the attack took.place is of course open to debate. One report say pulled onto street, the other pushed back.
And this of course is only the beginning of that attack, where it finished we do not know.

Why kill?
Partly to shut her up, and partly maybe just because he wanted too.

Why people are prepared to simply reject the Schwartz account is beyond me.
Actually it's not, I suspect it's because some do not like where it might lead.

That Abberline still believed Schwartz after the inquest, is I think the most important comment from Abberline during the entire case.
But others will of course disagree

Steve

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.....?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And in some instances, it was simply his own mind generated paranoia. No actual interruption was needed.

c.d.

Very true. In the event you know you'll hang, then that is a decent enough reason to be alert in relation to what is going on around you, and you may decide to run in the face of not very much at all; in the heat of the moment.

[c.d.]

Very true. In the event you know you'll hang, then that is a decent enough reason to be alert in relation to what is going on around you, and you may decide to run in the face of not very much at all; in the heat of the moment.

"Hang" being the operative word there. I can't speak for anyone else be they a killer or not but hang does get my intention. I assume it does for others as well.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Your whole plot is imagined. Anyone that will not accept that timings in this case have to be considered with a margin for error is not worth continuing with. You invent witnesses, assume every error to be sinister, you cherrypick statements, twist evidence and all because you are so entrenched in your Isenschmidt theory that you can’t see the wood for the trees. You’ve created this plot solely to keep Isenschmidt in the game and for no other reason.

You brush off a 15-20 minute variance as "a margin for error". Do you even understand what is being discussed here? First off, I dont cherry pick, I take the vast majority of matching accounts over a single unsubstantiated one. You do understand these terms, right? You are the one who inserts a fictional iterruption, you are the one who dismisses all the corroborated accounts for the one given by someone who will assault police with a club within 6 months of this event, you are the one who keeps insisting I am trying to "make" Isenschmitd a better possibility when Ive said numerous times I think the Fiddymount ID AND Abberlines own comments matches with him,...what youre really trying to say isnt that I dont have the right and the data to make my statements, which I obviously do have, its IF Im correct then you dont have your favourite piece of speculation anymore, a serial killer who also kills 3 more women.

No one agrees with your plot. It never happened. I’d rate it about 5 or 6 steps down from Trevor’s sanitary towel theory and just above Stephen Knight (just about). Aren’t you tired of the embarrassment at haven’t to be told that you’re wrong by just about every Ripperologist on the planet?

As Ive told you credible researchers and respected ones have reached out to me privately over the years to discuss ideas, has that happened with you I wonder? If being a Ripperologist means using the bs you spout, where can I order my " Im not with them" T-shirt? Im not sure when you think you were given the ability, authority or knowledege to claim what "everyone" else thinks, but it sure is unsettling thinking that you feel you have anyway. You are as much of a sociopath as Trump is Herlock, you throw insults, deny facts, create fictional agendas....all so you can feel superior or better informed. Time to hear the truth bud, you are not only NOT better informed that most of the people you claim to speak for, but you are also proving daily that you have less knowledge and cannot even understand what people post. Being inferior is only a real issue when superiority is instead being claimed.

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

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

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

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

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

"Hang" being the operative word there. I can't speak for anyone else be they a killer or not but hang does get my intention. I assume it does for others as well.

c.d.

I reckon what may be lost in all of this is that Jack wasn't flush with options and having looked for a while, somewhere like Dutfield's Yard, in a very dark spot, is the best he could have done. It doesn't follow that he wasn't acutely aware of what was going on around him and didn't run at the first possible problem, including a door banging somewhere not necessarily in close proximity.

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