John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

So the general theory is that Diemschitz returned earlier than he claimed and found the body and then, with other members of the club, decided that the police might decide to close the club down because of the murder. They decided to get someone to claim to have seen the victim engaged in a struggle with a man who used an anti-Semitic slur. Thus showing the police that the murderer wasn’t a Jewish club member which would have left them with no reason for closing down the club.

Obvious points showing the ‘plot’ to be nonsense.

• As far as everyone was concerned Stride’s murder was the fifth in a series (and of course a sixth would occur less than an hour later) No one could have been unaware of this which makes it simply unbelievable that those club members might have considered for a second that the police might have blamed them. Especially at a time of anti-Jewish feeling. If the police merely rubbed out the grafitto to prevent a riot by Jews what kind of reaction might the police have envisioned if they had closed down a Jewish club?
• As another murder had taken place that night (and there had been four others) how could they have been confident that the police wouldn’t have caught the killer before Schwartz appearance at the police station. And that the killer didn’t turn out to have been Jewish. What if ge’d confessed?
• As Lipski was a murderer how can we be anything like certain that, on occasion, a Jew might not have insulted another Jew by calling him Lipski? Yes of course we know that it was used as an anti-Semitic slur but Lipski was still a murderer and therefore a hate figure (including within the Jewish community) So why would our conspirators have used the convoluted and non-conclusive method of showing the killer to have been a gentile. So much could have gone wrong with this plan. All that Diemschitz needed to have done was to say that the killer pushed passed him and said something that proved that he wasn’t a Jew. We should be wary when assessing a theory when it requires acts of stupidity to bolster it.
• Why would Diemschitz have taken the huge risk of lying about what time he got back? He’d have known that the police would be interviewing neighbours as well as club members. Just one neighbour who says “I looked out of my window and saw Mr Diemschitz return on his cart. I checked my clock and it was 12.40!” Game over for Louis. Another act of stupidity that we are being asked to swallow. Alternatively a neighbour could have been looking out of his/her window at 12.55 to 1.00 and then told the police that they hadn’t seen Diemschitz return.
• Why when coming up with this plan didn’t Diemschitz even bother to spread the word? He knew that the police would be interviewing club members and we are being asked to believe that he came up with this plan (involving lying to the police over a murder - a man allegedly scared of having his club closed down) and yet he didn’t tell everyone else? Come on! He doesn’t bother to tell Hoschberg or Kosebrodski the script leaving them free to make him look like a liar to the police? No sensible person could believe this.
• Why use the Schwartz method which was open to have been disproven by any number of neighbours who might have been around? How could any adult not realise the massive risk involved and the ensuing consequences?

And that’s without looking at the rest of the details. Six obvious points which show how absolutely unbelievable the very idea of this ‘plot’ is. And when you start from a theory that’s not remotely likely then you are forced to clutch at straws to maintain it. Which is what we’ve seen for years on this subject.

[Michael W Richards]

When have I ever claimed that everyone agrees with me on everything?

Like on every post to me when you claim nobody agrees with me? Sound familiar?

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.

Conversely if anyone believes that a Canonical Group is a fact, not just a theory, the same might apply?

There are many people who do not include Liz among their own Ripper kill list, that you do believe it means that you have "faith" the theory is correct.

[Elamarna]

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.

What an interesting approach, the person who is constantly portraying belief in this thread is "yourself", your belief there is no evidence, your belief that Schwartz not being called says he was unreliable.

I base my views and opinions on the actual evidence, NOT what I want to think it should be.

So in this case:

We have the 3 senior police officers each saying they see no reason to consider Schwartz unreliable, having either interviewed Schwartz or relying on that interview and those conducting said interview, but you do not accept any of those views?

Rather you consider your modern day opinions are more reliable than those of the men involved.

While the absence of Schwartz from the inquest raises some questions, it does NOT on its own say he was judged unreliable.

The important qualifier here, is that it was the duty of the coroner and he alone to decide who was appeared at the inquest. The police might of course offer advice or make suggestions, but the decision was Baxter's.

It is clear that the senior police did not consider him unreliable, therefore for him to be considered unreliable Baxter must have spoken to Schwartz in person. There is no evidence of such Michael.
Therefore it would appear that being unreliable was NOT the reason he was no called.

Would you care to explain, why Mortimer was not called?
From your posts, you appear to consider her reliable?
I and several others have raised this apparent contradiction in your logic, several times, but I do not see a reply.

I submit, that the internal memos and reports of the metropolitan police, as much as you deny it, are evidence.

There is therefore NO EVIDENCE, that the authorities considered the account of Schwartz, or Schwartz himself to be unreliable.
The suggestion he was considered unreliable, is a view, based solely on belief and speculation.

No named senior officer involved in the case or the coroner make any comment to support the view he was unreliable. There appears to be no Evidence to support that view.

There is I accept plenty of speculation, attempting to explain why Schwartz is not present at the inquest, but it's just that speculation.
Please not I do not speculate in this thread why he was not called, that is a different debate.

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.

I could not disagree with you more Michael,
" logic and reason" are simply another attempt at that old favourite of "Common Sense"

The problem with the approach is that what is logically and reasonable to one person is not to another, just as what's "common sense" to one is simply nonsense to someone else.

As I said before, it's always our assumptions that lead us to fail.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are many people who do not include Liz among their own Ripper kill list, that you do believe it means that you have "faith" the theory is correct.

I’ve said at least THREE TIMES on this thread that I’ve never been certain that she was a ripper victim. That’s called having an open mind on the subject. Whereas you dismiss her as a victim simply to make your Isenschmidt theory fit.

Why are you repeating things that aren’t true? More evidence that you simply hear what you want to hear instead of reading properly.

[Michael W Richards]

Steve, Ill address one question you raised in your last post. Fanny didnt claim to see Liz Stride, she did not claim to see Liz Stride alive on the street in an assault, and she did not see anyone fleeing. Which still makes her statement valuable, but not for the questions the Inquest asks. I did answer this specifically a few posts back, but youre so busy trying to dismiss things that In say you might have missed that one.

You espouse support for the various opinions offered by the contemporary investigators, even in memo form. Ive read enough of their opinions to see that they often differed on what they thought reasonable and on occasion made suggestions that raise questions about their information. Like naming a man who was in jail during the crimes one of 3 "suspects". If you rely on these mens opinions so much then tell me...was he definitely a polish jew or was he American, was he a butcher or a hairdresser, was he unknown or known and institutionalized, did he commit suicide, did they identify Hutchinson in any records and if so why cant we, did they discover where Israel Schwartz says his wife moved from on the day he says he saw Liz being manhandled, did they check Mary Janes supposed background and if so why cant we, did any policeman really get a good look at the killer, was this investigation a Hot Potato.......I could make a list a mile long of things they said that raise more questions than answer anything.

In fairness I posted some remarks today to settle the vitriol here a bit, though it seems Im the only one who finds it infantile and exhausting. Fair enough. Im not responding to any more trash talk. I have my opinions, they are based on the known facts, and if you or anyone just disagrees with them then I cant be bothered to explain them further.

[Michael W Richards]

I’ve said at least THREE TIMES on this thread that I’ve never been certain that she was a ripper victim. That’s called having an open mind on the subject. Whereas you dismiss her as a victim simply to make your Isenschmidt theory fit.

Why are you repeating things that aren’t true? More evidence that you simply hear what you want to hear instead of reading properly.

So then what is the purpose of arguing about interruptions then, other than to keep the notion that a Ripper may have killed her? I hear and read fine, and am sorely disappointed in the lack of rebuttal based on facts. You and Steve are arguing semantics, not whether or not anything Ive said may have merit in the general discussions. I guess you obviously know better than me about all these cases huh? Solve 1 then... would you please.

[The Rookie Detective]

This is the longest thread ever and yet we don't seem to be progressing very far as a collective. And to say it's go e off track is an understatement.

Surely there are only THREE possibilities
..

Option 1 - Stride WAS murdered by JTR and is indeed one of the Canonical victims. However, because her wounds only consisted of a cut throat, it would almost certainly suggest tha the killer was disturbed by someone or something because the rippers signature wasn't just focused on the throat and involved more ritualistic mutilation of some kind.
Stride was a JTR victim but the killer was disturbed.


Option 2 - Stride WASNT murdered by JTR and was instead murdered by a client, perhaps over a quarrel with money or payment. OR Stride was murdered by an enforcer to a gang to which she owed money as part of her protection money for services rendered. There was organised prostitution rings that existed then just as they do now and often run by men who ran the common lodging houses. That would make the letters fake and the whole idea of a double event being just a coincidence.

Option 3 - Stride WAS killed by JTR...BUT he deliberately only cut Strides throat because his real target was Eddowes and Stride was only a stepping stone to Eddowes. In other words, he only INTENDED to mutilate ONE woman and Stride was just his warm up and not part of his bigger plan


Outside of these 3 options, what else is there?

Once you choose the option you feel is right, THEN look at what evidence is there and what the words and actions of witnesses suggest happened at the time. Build a picture...take you time...and then if it all feels like you're on the wrong path...

Then the chances are you've picked the wrong option from the start and need to rethink.


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

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

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

I disagree mostly with your approach, Michael, the idea that you believe you can confidently state that which was in the mind of a serial killer. And, wrapped up in this, you believe this is a human being making wise, informed decisions.

Well, he was running 'round carving up people. There's your first and most obvious clue that we're not discussing a reasonable human being here and he wasn't necessarily making wise decisions.

We know from knowledge and experience that serial killers are interrupted, that they take some extraordinary risks, and some are lucky enough to get away with those risks by virtue of nothing more than circumstance.

It's akin to Trevor's argument where he claims the location and the timing doesn't fit. There's an underlying premise that serial killers are bound by stringent rules, but we know from studies of serial killers that said premise doesn't hold true.

It doesn't even hold true for you and I, nor anyone else on this board. We all make decisions that in retrospect weren't particularly wise: that is the nature of human beings. We have imagination, emotion, instinct; we're not some robot species.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree in the sense that your objection would be better applied to the medical evidence. It seems that Catherine and Liz were murdered with different knives, 'not conclusive but it appears that way. It follows that somebody has to put an argument together to suggest Jack had the means of carrying around more than one knife. It's not unheard of for serial killers to use more than one weapon, nor more than one knife, still; it's a better argument than claiming to know how Jack acted and what was going through his mind.

In the end, murders on the street were extremely uncommon in London in 1888, and in this case you're suggesting that there were two murderers operating in the same area within an hour or so. It would be interesting to know if any such similar event has happened in any country at any time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So then what is the purpose of arguing about interruptions then, other than to keep the notion that a Ripper may have killed her? I hear and read fine, and am sorely disappointed in the lack of rebuttal based on facts. You and Steve are arguing semantics, not whether or not anything Ive said may have merit in the general discussions. I guess you obviously know better than me about all these cases huh? Solve 1 then... would you please.

The purpose of arguing interruptions is that it’s a plausible possibility Michael. No more, no less. A plausible possibility which you want to dismiss on the grounds that there should have been evidence of interruption which clearly and very obviously isn’t the case. Someone can be interrupted with absolutely no evidence of the ultimate intention being left on show. Why can’t you grasp this? Why are you so determined to try and ‘prove’ the unprovable? Such determination, intransigence and years of dogged persistence in the face of such a weight of opposition can only mean one thing…..that you have an agenda.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, he was running 'round carving up people. There's your first and most obvious clue that we're not discussing a reasonable human being here and he wasn't necessarily making wise decisions.

A point that’s not made often enough in my opinion. We can try and suggest how someone might have thought or acted but we can’t assume it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the longest thread ever and yet we don't seem to be progressing very far as a collective. And to say it's go e off track is an understatement.

Surely there are only THREE possibilities
..

Option 1 - Stride WAS murdered by JTR and is indeed one of the Canonical victims. However, because her wounds only consisted of a cut throat, it would almost certainly suggest tha the killer was disturbed by someone or something because the rippers signature wasn't just focused on the throat and involved more ritualistic mutilation of some kind.
Stride was a JTR victim but the killer was disturbed.


Option 2 - Stride WASNT murdered by JTR and was instead murdered by a client, perhaps over a quarrel with money or payment. OR Stride was murdered by an enforcer to a gang to which she owed money as part of her protection money for services rendered. There was organised prostitution rings that existed then just as they do now and often run by men who ran the common lodging houses. That would make the letters fake and the whole idea of a double event being just a coincidence.

Option 3 - Stride WAS killed by JTR...BUT he deliberately only cut Strides throat because his real target was Eddowes and Stride was only a stepping stone to Eddowes. In other words, he only INTENDED to mutilate ONE woman and Stride was just his warm up and not part of his bigger plan


Outside of these 3 options, what else is there?

Once you choose the option you feel is right, THEN look at what evidence is there and what the words and actions of witnesses suggest happened at the time. Build a picture...take you time...and then if it all feels like you're on the wrong path...

Then the chances are you've picked the wrong option from the start and need to rethink.


RD

To be honest I’d narrow it down to the first two RD. There are points for and against both. I’ve been undecided for close to 40 years.

BTW, the Maybrick Thread is 3 times as long as this one, the Hanratty thread (a bit quiet of late) is twice as long but the main point is that the thread is titled ‘John Richardson.’

[Fleetwood Mac]

A point that’s not made often enough in my opinion. We can try and suggest how someone might have thought or acted but we can’t assume it.

Aye, I reckon all we have to go on is the study and experience of other serial killers. They don't fit Michael's nor Trevor's supposition.

[Elamarna]

Steve, Ill address one question you raised in your last post. Fanny didnt claim to see Liz Stride, she did not claim to see Liz Stride alive on the street in an assault, and she did not see anyone fleeing. Which still makes her statement valuable, but not for the questions the Inquest asks. I did answer this specifically a few posts back, but youre so busy trying to dismiss things that In say you might have missed that one.

I am sorry Michael, but It matters NOT, if Mortimer claimed to see Stride or not, she is a key player in trying to establish a timeline, she was not called to the inquest.
If Schwartz not being called, is an indication of unreliability, then so must Mortimer's omission be an indication the same.
The reality however, is that neither were needed, and their no appearance does not indicate they were unreliable.

When Baxter, and it is he who was the coroner is presented with what he considers unreliable evidence, he clears says so, as in the case of the mortuary attendants in the Nichols case.

You espouse support for the various opinions offered by the contemporary investigators, even in memo form. Ive read enough of their opinions to see that they often differed on what they thought reasonable and on occasion made suggestions that raise questions about their information. Like naming a man who was in jail during the crimes one of 3 "suspects".

I mentioned the 3 senior Met officers, Abberline, Swanson and Anderson, active during the investigation.
And you counter by raiseing Macnaghten, who was not even in the police in the 1888.
Your reply gives the impression that this comment about 3 suspects, is about one of the officers I have mentioned, that is I am sorry to say completely misleading.

If you rely on these mens opinions so much then tell me...was he definitely a polish jew or was he American, was he a butcher or a hairdresser, was he unknown or known and institutionalized, did he commit suicide, did they identify Hutchinson in any records and if so why cant we, did they discover where Israel Schwartz says his wife moved from on the day he says he saw Liz being manhandled, did they check Mary Janes supposed background and if so why cant we, did any policeman really get a good look at the killer, was this investigation a Hot Potato.......I could make a list a mile long of things they said that raise more questions than answer anything.

Of the 3 officers I have mentioned, 2 believed the killer was a member of the Jewish community. No first name is provided so his profession is unknown.

The 3rd favoured a hairdresser, however he did leave the case before the conclusion of the investigations, apparently before the other two reached a conclusion, he was not in the final loop.

However, that they had different suspects, in no way indicates that they could not judge if a witness was reliable or not.

I note that you allude to Macnaughten again and I assume Littlechild for the American connection, officers who were not actually involved in the investigation, and who I have not mentioned.
I see a reference to the comments attributed to Monro in later life, again someone I have not mentioned.



You ask a string of questions, many of which may have been addressed at the time, but the records do not surive.

The impression you give is of a totally incompetent police force, or one that countrived to hide the truth.
It is of course now abundantly clear who at least some of the people you mentioned to Herlock are.

In fairness I posted some remarks today to settle the vitriol here a bit, though it seems Im the only one who finds it infantile and exhausting. Fair enough. Im not responding to any more trash talk. I have my opinions, they are based on the known facts, and if you or anyone just disagrees with them then I cant be bothered to explain them further.

So those who disagree with you are infantile?
And posts that counter your ideas, or ask questions are "trash"?

That sounds just a touch arrogant Michael.

[Elamarna]

Duplicate post

[Elamarna]

So then what is the purpose of arguing about interruptions then, other than to keep the notion that a Ripper may have killed her? I hear and read fine, and am sorely disappointed in the lack of rebuttal based on facts. You and Steve are arguing semantics, not whether or not anything Ive said may have merit in the general discussions. I guess you obviously know better than me about all these cases huh? Solve 1 then... would you please.

I am not arguing semantics, I am arguing hard fact.
The police give NO indication that they found Schwartz unreliable.
If you believe you have factual evidence that they did, present it.
Actual facts, not speculation or logical deductions or assumptions.

Steve