Schwartz v. Lawende

[lynn cates]

synthetic a priori

Hello John. Thanks.

"Hume's argument that no inferential justification of deduction is possible?"

No. That's INDUCTION. Deduction relies ONLY of definition and form.

"Didn't Kant attempt to answer Hume via synthetic a priori principles?"

Yes. But not all accept such a category.

But, if Kant is right, philosophy is wrong--and vice versa.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

methods

Hello Jeff. Thanks. Hope you are well also.

"however you figure it, it seems improbable she held onto the cachous somehow?"

Indeed. The method in my reenactment worked (on multiple trials)--let's presume there are others.

Hopefully, your partner will recover health soon and (gingerly) explore some possibilities.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

The earliest sighting of Stride that night was around 11:00 pm with a man at the pub in Settles Street, just over the north side of Commercial Rd.
We don't know where they met, but we do know Stride came from Flower & Dean St., on the north side of Whitechapel Road.

Hi Jon

Yes an interesting observation.

But if she was already with 'Jack' from the out wasn't she with him rather a long time for a prostitute?

Many thanks

Yours jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I agree. The police in 1888 were clearly trying to solve the case to the best of their ability, whereas there are serious questions regarding the 1964 investigation. Of course, Seabrook contended that John du Rose framed Mungo Ireland, a suspect against which there was no evidence of any description linking him to the murders and, as noted, he was in Scotland when the last victim was abducted.

Hi John...I think Seabrooke was correct but for different reasons. Iteland didn't start work as a security guard until Oct 1963, so he would not have known about the electrical substation when Flemming and Brown were stored there.

However I think Seabrookes conclussion, based on what Baldock said is incorrect. I don't think it was Cushway.

Just out of interest, do you consider Elizabeth Figg and Gwynneth Rees to victims of the same serial killer? I think both a likely victims.

Yes all show sign of missing teeth which is the killers trade mark. He's a trophy collector like Jack the Ripper and Sutcliffe

Yours Jeff

[Wickerman]

Its always struck me as odd that all the other victims from Smith to Kellly, meant their attacker on the north side of the Whitechapel Road.....So why Berner Street?

The earliest sighting of Stride that night was around 11:00 pm with a man at the pub in Settles Street, just over the north side of Commercial Rd.
We don't know where they met, but we do know Stride came from Flower & Dean St., on the north side of Whitechapel Road.

[c.d.]

But what about falling whilst holding something in the palm of the hand, CD?

Yes, John that does happen but it is not the norm. But if it is say a beer can or a purse or some other object that object absorbs some of the shock of the fall. In the case of the cachous, there is only the tissue paper protecting them.

And while it is certainly possible that Stride could have held on to the cachous while falling there is also her attempting to get up (again the natural reaction is to put your weight on your outstretched hand to assist you in getting up). And then if she were dragged and attempted to fight off her attacker the cachous had to withstand that as well. So it is three things not just holding them while falling.

And while the cachous factor has been beaten to death, the point that I was trying to make was that if you want to ratchet up the ferocity of the B.S. man's attack then there is a direct correlation with the cachous, i.e., more violence increases the chances the cachous would have scattered.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

Hume's argument that no inferential justification of deduction is possible? Didn't Kant attempt to answer Hume via synthetic a priori principles?

He did indeed. I remember him grabbing his private parts and distinctly saying "yeah, I got your inferential justification of deduction right here."

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It's an interesting point about Stride not being seen by herself that night. However, if she was soliciting, there surely must have been such periods.

Hi John.
Not speaking as an authority on the subject but, I'm pretty sure there was more than one type of 'soliciting'.

By way of example, we have women who prefer to solicit for brief encounters, a quick knee-trembler, and they are on their way.
Then there are others who hook up with a man who treats them to drink, and maybe pie and peas, and a bit of companionship for the night and she will stay with him until he has spent up.

I suspect Stride was the latter, and the man who killed her was the one seen by PC Smith, which was the same man she was with at the Bricklayers Arms, and quite possibly the man Packer saw her with.
And yes, I am well aware that differences exist in the descriptions of these men, though differences exist between witness descriptions today as the police can all too easily verify.

Packer was 58 yrs old, and could only see the chest of the man due to the serving window being so low, then he see's the man across the street in the dark. How many 58 year olds today don't have failing eyesight?

Then we have PC Smith who saw a man in a hard felt hat, but then later he says the hat was a deerstalker - they are not the same.
Packer changed his mind and was ridiculed for it, PC Smith changed his mind and no-one noticed.

As for Schwartz, I can't dismiss his statement because both Abberline & Swanson seem to accept it, and they must have known more than we do. However, my theory does not rely on Schwartz's statement, in fact you could eliminate Schwartz altogether (as some have suggested), and my theory does not change.

[Michael W Richards]

Guys,

As an exercise, I think we should all consider the Berner Street murder sans Schwartz. Pretend Schwartz never came forward and we don't have his story. We have Brown, Smith, Mortimer, but no Schwartz. And then see what happens.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I see now why you are looking at Brown closer, based on the above. He is the man at the Inquest who claims activity he witnessed at approx 12:45,not Israel.

That sighting seems to me to problematic due to the absence of the flower arrangement, that we have witness testimony for, which was on her prior to 12:45am. The interesting element for me on the incident Brown claims is that I could see the man looming over the woman poking the woman in the shoulders while talking to her in an intimidating manner.

[John G]

Don't get me wrong here...I don't think this gets us any closer to the identity of Jack the Ripper....It simply explains why the various policeman involved said and why they believed what they did...

Its my opinion that the policeman involved in 1888 were far better and more honourable than those involved in 1964

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I agree. The police in 1888 were clearly trying to solve the case to the best of their ability, whereas there are serious questions regarding the 1964 investigation. Of course, Seabrook contended that John du Rose framed Mungo Ireland, a suspect against which there was no evidence of any description linking him to the murders and, as noted, he was in Scotland when the last victim was abducted.

Just out of interest, do you consider Elizabeth Figg and Gwynneth Rees to victims of the same serial killer? I think both a likely victims.

[Jon Guy]

I just did a quick google search using the terms "fall catch yourself with hands outstretched." A number of responses show up mostly medical and sports related. You see over and over that it is natural to land on your outstretched hands.

But what about falling whilst holding something in the palm of the hand, CD?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for this. I must keep up with the more recent developments in the Kosminski case! Particularly as I regard him as one of the few realistic suspects.

Don't get me wrong here...I don't think this gets us any closer to the identity of Jack the Ripper....It simply explains why the various policeman involved said and why they believed what they did...

Its my opinion that the policeman involved in 1888 were far better and more honourable than those involved in 1964

Yours Jeff

[John G]

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I think the whole mystery is easily explainable in that Anderson and Mcnaughton are describing two completely different events.

McNaughten, who investigates Druit before joining the police is working from memory when he writes his memo in 1894. However he has the file created by Cox on Kozminski so his information on Kozminski is very accurate but only up to the time Kozminski is placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey in March 1889.

So there is a PC witness in Mitre Street

Karsten has posted a umber of press reports of a man and woman seen leaving Aldgate Station shortly before Eddows was murdered and the man returning alone down Mitre Street past Aldgate towards Goulston Street. The whole of that route is in City Police jurisdiction. Then we have the man with the red scarf being arrested the following day.

Mcnaughten: 'There were many circumstances'

I believe Kozminski came to the attention of police early on, but they failed to get a positive ID from Schwartz or Lawende so they had to let him go and have him followed. There was a PC Witness in Mitre Street but he only had a general view of the man and could not be certain, hence why Kozminski was followed by City Police for nearly three months.....IMAGINE THE PAPER WORK AND REPORTS? Where are they? I'd suggest in MacNaughten's bottom draw

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for this. I must keep up with the more recent developments in the Kosminski case! Particularly as I regard him as one of the few realistic suspects.

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

Of course, there can be NO proof of an empirical object as they are inductive matters and proofs are deductive.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Hume's argument that no inferential justification of deduction is possible? Didn't Kant attempt to answer Hume via synthetic a priori principles?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

But if her arm is pulled tight behind her, what about those cachous?

Cheers.
LC

We've been over this before Lynn, without actually doing it (And my partner is still recovering a major back operation) I think its impossible to tell.

To some extent however you figure it it seems improbable she held onto the cachous somehow? I suggest that it was some sort of reflex action caused by pain and shock...but I can't prove that..

So there is always going to be an element of mystery about the cachous

Trusting you are well on this fine winters morning

Yours Jeff