Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stride Murder

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    They’ve already decided Michael…..you just haven’t got the message.

    Twenty years of utter rejection.
    Did you even read what your own theory sounds like? I typed it so you could see for yourself what you are defending, and instead of reading it you post the above? And you wonder why the name calling....

    And yet again.... you speak for yourself and no-one else, and since I posted what your theory is actually like on paper, you can bet no-one will defend it...other than you, of course. If I hadnt seen this nonsense I wouldnt have believed someone could be so daft.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      But when juxtaposed with corroborative accounts concerning the same location and event, I personally would accept Spooners/Kozebrodski's/Heschbergs/Lambs timing which are all within a few minutes of each others.
      You repeating false statements doesn't make them true.

      PC Lamb's time estimate was the body was found around 1am.

      Kozebordsky and Hershberg estimate the time as around 12:40 ti 12:45am.

      Spooner estimates he saw more than a dozen people around the body around 12:35am, which would put actual discovery around 12:30am, perhaps earlier.

      l
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      And Fanny can contribute her part from 12:50 until she goes indoors, at around 1. I know she was there, she is the only person that saw Goldstein at around 12:55 apparently.....validated by his own statement Tuesday night....
      Mortimer's statement supports Diemschutz arriving at around 1am.

      Mortimer, and by implication Goldstein, contradict the time given by Kozebordsky and Hershberg, as well as the time given by Spooner. Even Spooner contradicts the tiime given by Spooner.

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

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
        Goldstein was a club member who seems not to have attended the ~100 strong event that night, yet he was in the area and seen by a witness not long before the discovery.
        Where is there evidence that Goldstein was a member of the club?

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

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          That is not what r Blackwell said, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

          "The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground." - Dr Blackwell.
          Did he say that it could have been cut while falling? "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground".

          So your problem is that I didnt include "or when she was on the ground"? Since he already stated the scarf was pulled backwards, tight and twisted and that the nicks on her scarf matched the cut on her throat, which seems a more probable answer? While falling or when prone?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            Did you even read what your own theory sounds like? I typed it so you could see for yourself what you are defending, and instead of reading it you post the above? And you wonder why the name calling....

            And yet again.... you speak for yourself and no-one else, and since I posted what your theory is actually like on paper, you can bet no-one will defend it...other than you, of course. If I hadnt seen this nonsense I wouldnt have believed someone could be so daft.
            I have no ‘theory.’ I simply accept what happened. Diemschitz returned around 1.00 and found the body. Earlier Schwartz saw just what he said that he saw and Mortimer didn’t see it because she was inside her house at the time. It’s very simple. No need for any Agatha Christie stuff.

            This is what the majority of Ripperologists accept. At least those that haven’t been forced into inventing a plot to support a theory.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • Why is it assumed that after BS man throws Stride down onto the footway and shouts "Lipski," that he doesn't just grab Stride and pull her backward a few feet and then slice her throat just as Schwartz is running off?

              Schwartz doesn't see Stride after she is thrown down and is focused on Pipeman. As he is watching Pipeman move toward him, that could have been the point Stride is pulled back into the darkness and murdered. It would have taken a few seconds at the very most.

              What evidence is there to dismiss her being dragged back a few feet? The gatwway and yard were on a slight gradient down from the footway because the blood ran down towards the club door from her murder location. Otherwise, the blood would have run into the street.

              On that basis, it would have been even easier to drag Stride backward.

              If Schwartz is to be believed, then why are we quick to suggest another man murdered Stride after BS man threw her down to the floor?

              I fear that the real reason is that it reduces the likelihood that Stride was a Ripper victim, because it was too public a gesture to have thrown her down and then dragged her back to slice her throat.

              It seems more likely on balance that BS man killed Stride just seconds after he shouted "Lipski" than BS man walking off and then another man stepping in from somewhere and then killing her.

              It BS man WASN'T her killer, then it would be similar to a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle and being knocked down, to then have the driver drive off and for the pedestrian to then get back up again, walk 10 feet and then get hit again by someone else, which then kills the pedestrian.

              If Stride was assaulted 10 feet away from where was found dead within 15 minutes of being attacked, surely it would make more sense for the initial aggressor to also be the killer?

              One of the key reasons why I think Schwartz is to be believed is because he says the man walks up to her and within seconds assaults her. That would be more in keeping with reality.

              I can't see how JTR would stay and stand with Stride for "over half an hour" in the rain and then kill her.

              It's not the being seen with Stride that doesn't fit with it being the Ripper; or even the idea that he spent some time with her before he killed her. What DOESN'T fit is the apparent combination of both time and space.

              The ripper wouldn't have remained standing with Stride for over half an hour in the rain and remained standing together with her in Berner Street, without trying to move her somewhere secluded. He never spent more than 5 minutes with Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes, and so why would he spend more than a few minutes with Stride? He would be too exposed for a start.

              When Le Grand interrogated/interviewed Packer and convinced him to make up a story, his intention was that he wanted the press and police to believe that the killer bought grapes from Packer and then spent time with Stride. Therefore, I would suggest that the opposite is true and the real killer spent no more than a minute with Stride.

              The reason why the JTR only spent a minute with Stride is because for the first 45 seconds he threw her to the floor, scared off Schwartz and then dragged her back 10 feet into the yard. The other 15 seconds he took cutting her throat and then leaving/being disturbed.

              Because Le Grand got involved directly with Packer, it would have been for a very good reason that benefited Le Grand.


              Could the killer have mistaken Stride holding the cachous for grapes?

              If Cachous looks SIMILAR to black grapes and COULD be mistaken for grapes, then Le Grand approaching Packer becomes more suspicious.

              Did the killer need to convince a witness to concoct a story about a couple buying grapes in order to make a description of the killer that wasn't accurate?


              Now we know for a FACT that Le Grand WASN'T BS man, because the height difference is distinct.

              However, could Pipeman have been Le Grand?

              Do we have a good description of Pipeman?

              Is there a chance that BS man worked for Pipeman and when BS man tried to drag Stride into the street, he was actually trying to bring her to Pipeman?

              But because she resisted, BS Man just threw her to the floor?


              Thoughts?


              RD





              "Great minds, don't think alike"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

                So let's say a maximum of 10 feet from the footway to the place her body was found... So IF Schwartz is correct, then Stride is laying on the footway (the little path between the street and the gateway?) but is found within 15 minutes or so laying dead up to 10 feet away?

                So would it be likely; and gain this depends entirely if Schwartz is telling the truth/accurate with his observations, if after Stride was thrown down onto the footway and was alleged to have shouted "Lipski!" that in the time it took for Schwartz to "Run" off; potentially followed by Pipeman, that BS man simply dragged/pulled her 10 feet from her landing position on the footway and then moved her back into the darkness of inside the gateway and THEN cut her throat?

                From BS man shouting "Lipski" and Schwartz exiting the scene, BS man would would needed only a few seconds to drag Stride into the darkness and cut her throat AFTER moving her.

                How long would it take to drag/pull a relatively small woman already laying on the floor a matter of 10 feet and then cutting her throat in the manner the killer did?
                I get what you're saying, it likely depends on how we choose to view the incident.

                Imagine a sheet of paper with fifty dots on it, and we must join the dots.
                I'll bet we all join the dots a different way. But how many lines already exist between a number of dots - those existing lines are what I see as evidence.
                The only rule to the game is, in order to draw any new lines there must be some indication a line is missing between those particular dots.

                So now, in your case "she was dragged", ok - is there any evidence in the mud, or on the cobbles, or on her shoes, that she might have been dragged?
                That is an example of a missing line in our game.
                Do you get my point?

                Then we might ask if her clothes are hunched up or loose in anyway as they might be if the body was dragged?

                There is also the question of, was she resisting being dragged, or was her body limp, unconscious?
                If resisting, then what indication do we have of her resistance, noises of kicking & screaming?
                Or perhaps if unconscious, are there any indications of a bad bruise on her head, or a smell of chloroform around her nose & mouth?

                So, if we are going to create an explanation for anything.....the rule we should observe is that there must be some indication of that explanation. Not something we simply pull out of a hat.

                I think Schwartz was telling the truth BUT may have been wrong about what he thought he saw. A false truth, meaning his intention was honest and he did see certain events unfold, but maybe his interpretation of what transpired may have been perceived incorrectly.
                What about the wrong street, he only witnessed a scuffle between two other people in another street?


                Let's not forget that the killer would NOT have spent any considerable amount of time or be SEEN to be spending time with Stride, kissing, eating grapes etc... because JTR was an opportunist who was an engage, entice, kill, mutilate and go kind of killer (not including MJK of course)

                I would suggest that IF her killer was a man seen talking with her for a while, kissing her, buying grapes with her and standing in the rain for over half an hour etc...that her murder was not ripper related.
                Fair enough, but what suggests to you that this killer's M.O. was a swift attack out of the shadows?
                Isn't it just as likely that we have invented that type of killer?

                What was Nichols doing for an hour or two before she was killed?
                The same with Chapman, where was she?
                Eddowes is the only candidate where we can say the killer could have come out of the shadows.
                Even Kelly seems to have been with her killer for a short time, an hour at least before she was murdered.
                Kelly had eaten some pie, hadn't Chapman also, and Stride fed grapes?
                Did this killer actually 'date' his victims for an hour or two, and bought them food, before he struck?

                Why then is Stride, first seen with a man at 11:00 pm outside the Bricklayer's Arms, and with a man, or the same man, for nearly two hours, before being killed?

                How is this any different to Nichols, Chapman, Kelly?
                He may have even 'dated' Eddowes for 30 minutes at least.
                Isn't it possible, Stride's killer 'dated' her before killing her, perhaps this 'dating' was part of the thrill?

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  You repeating false statements doesn't make them true.

                  1. PC Lamb's time estimate was the body was found around 1am.

                  2. Kozebordsky and Hershberg estimate the time as around 12:40 ti 12:45am.

                  3. Spooner estimates he saw more than a dozen people around the body around 12:35am, which would put actual discovery around 12:30am, perhaps earlier.

                  4. Mortimer's statement supports Diemschutz arriving at around 1am.

                  5. Mortimer, and by implication Goldstein, contradict the time given by Kozebordsky and Hershberg, as well as the time given by Spooner. Even Spooner contradicts the tiime given by Spooner.
                  1. PC Lamb heard from Eagle that a body had been found just before 1. He did not find any body himself.
                  2. Correct
                  3. Correct. Since Issac and Heschberg came from inside the club and spooner had no time to refer to, not hard to imagine he was off by a few minutes. Not 20 however.
                  4. Fanny was at her door until 1 when she went in. She didnt see Louis arrive. Please highlight in the following quote where she "supports" Diemshitz, and note the bold and highlighted part please.

                  She said "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. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School. I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.[1]"

                  5. Mortimers statement in no way contradicts either Issac or Heschberg or Spooner. She said she was at her door "nearly the whole time", not ALL the time.

                  Thanks for correcting what was already correct though.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    Unless the difference between passageway and footway was lost in translation.

                    Try this very literal interpretation...

                    ... on turning into Berner St. from Commercial Road & having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.

                    Schwartz is at the gateway. Not yards up the street. The man and woman are at the gateway, and Schwartz is right alongside them when the man speaks to the woman.

                    The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway​ ...

                    The man threw her down where she was found dead. Not out on the footway. Rather, in the passageway and facing the club wall. She never moves from the spot she is thrown down to.
                    So, you think all three of them were almost in touching distance at the gateway?
                    But then you interpret footway as gateway?
                    Yet, the gateway is separated from the street by the footway, which is technically part of the street, but for this exchange the witness is making a distinction.
                    She was not found in the gateway, thats your problem above. She was found in the yard/passage.

                    The gateway is typically a line between the yard & the footway. So you are dealing with four designations; yard, gateway, footway, street. In some cases we have the yard described as a passage, in reality it is neither one nor the other. It is an entrance to a yard.
                    But, the body was for sure found in the yard, a good 9-10 ft from the edge of the property. Yet, she was described as thrown down on the footway outside the yard/passage.
                    I can't see how your interpretation works.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      1. PC Lamb heard from Eagle that a body had been found just before 1. He did not find any body himself.
                      .
                      Ok.

                      Six newspaper versions of what Lamb said have been posted on here.


                      1. “Last Sunday morning, shortly before one o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial-road“

                      The Telegraph.


                      2. About 1 o’clock, as near as I can tell,” ?

                      The Times.


                      3. “At about one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road between Christian-street and Batty-street “

                      Daily News.


                      4. “Police-constable Henry Lamb said that on Sunday morning when he was in Commercial-road, at about 1 o'clock”

                      East London Advertiser.


                      5. “Early on the morning of Sunday last, while I was on duty in the Commercial-road”

                      The Echo.


                      6. “About one o'clock on Sunday morning last I was in Commercial-road, between Christian-street and Batty-street”

                      Morning Advertiser.​


                      And what does Michael ‘respecter of the evidence’ Richards deduce from this? That he likes The Telegraph version and that the other 5 can all be completely ignored.

                      Its always good to see a fair approach.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • I wonder why the police didn’t say “hold on…..a couple of these foreign chappies appear to be saying that the body was discovered earlier. Something’s afoot

                        Is it because they reviewed the evidence as a whole after interviewing each suspect, gauging their reliability that they came to the only conclusion possible…. that Koz and Hosch were just mistaken. And so those with the fullest access to all of the information came to what overall conclusion? That the body was discovered by Diemschitz at 1.00.

                        As it clearly was.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          I have no ‘theory.’ I simply accept what happened. Diemschitz returned around 1.00 and found the body. Earlier Schwartz saw just what he said that he saw and Mortimer didn’t see it because she was inside her house at the time. It’s very simple. No need for any Agatha Christie stuff.

                          This is what the majority of Ripperologists accept. At least those that haven’t been forced into inventing a plot to support a theory.
                          Read your own theory in print. I put it down down so everyone can see your impeccable logic. I could care less what the majority of anyone thinks, since the majority of the students of these cases thinks they are looking for a serial killer of five instead of just trying to solve individual murders, I dont share much with the "majority" anyway.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            Read your own theory in print. I put it down down so everyone can see your impeccable logic. I could care less what the majority of anyone thinks, since the majority of the students of these cases thinks they are looking for a serial killer of five instead of just trying to solve individual murders, I dont share much with the "majority" anyway.
                            Oh I forgot the N.C.M.M.W (National Convention of Maniacal Mutilators of Women) were holding their annual meeting in London at that time. And 4 or 5 of their member just couldn’t control themselves.

                            Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were undoubtedly killed by the same man. A serial killer. It’s as simple as that. Stride might also have been killed by him too.

                            You disagree but who cares?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                              I don't know. Perhaps Pipeman said to himself hey this is a rough looking drunk man in a dispute with his woman. If he picked up on Lipski or just a threatening gesture to Schwartz he might have decided he might turn on me next.
                              Perhaps, but once again creativity is required to deal with elements of the story that do not sit easily with common sense.

                              I don't know but I don't see how finding the Hungarian relates to finding the B.S. man and the Pipeman. Can we say definitively that someone with the police didn't leak it?

                              c.d.
                              It fits like this. Pipeman was found and discovered to be associated with the club. Knowing this, the Star man went to the club and asked for information about the incident. Wess obliged, told the reporter Schwartz's current location/address, and generously offered the assistance of an interpreter.

                              Failing that, the police gave the Star man the address. Presumably to see if Schwartz would tell the same story as the one he told Abberline.
                              Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were undoubtedly killed by the same man. A serial killer. It’s as simple as that. Stride might also have been killed by him too.

                                You disagree but who cares?
                                Well......Baxter for one (Stride Inquest): "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;"
                                Last edited by GBinOz; 09-07-2023, 05:43 AM.
                                Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.​ - LOTR

                                All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

                                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X