|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 16 August 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
A Type of Hell: The Fall of Louis Diemschutz:
Archive through 16 August 2001
Author: graziano
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 03:25 pm |        | Hello Robeer,
I must agree with Simon remark above.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 05 August 2001 - 06:24 pm | | Harry, Graziano, Dutfields yard had two main entrance gates didn't it?. They opened inwards, the righthand gate had a small personell door in it ,for use when the gates were both shut. They were both wide open on the night in question, maybe they had been opened in preparation for Diemshultz return home. It's said a horse will shy away from a dead body, or the smell of blood. Judging from what we know of the presence of blood coming from the body, that is what the horse was shying from. But there could be a contribution from someone in the pitchdark, sensed only by the horse, moving quickly along the righthand wall to position himself between the wall and the gate. Then maybe while Diemshultz was busy trying to keep his match alight, the culprit escaped through the personell door if there was room and if it was possible to open!, or perhaps he just waited for Diemshultz to go indoors for help.
Regards Rick |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 06 August 2001 - 12:26 pm | | Hi, Rick:
That personnel door in the gates of Dutfield Yard, as you term it, is called a "Judas gate."
The suspense writer Jack Higgins (aka Harry Patterson) is very fond of using that name in his works, and in a letter dated April 16, 1985 he gave an explanation of his use of the term:
"Judas gates constantly surface in my books and people have often commented. There is a painting, I think Victorian, which shows a very large double gate. Inset in this gate, is a small door or gate which you can open and step through without the inconvenience of opening the larger double gates. In the painting, Judas is seen stepping through on his way to betray Christ. So, in English factories, you find such a small door set in most big factory gates and they were traditionally known in Yorkshire, a very industrial area where I grew up, as JUDAS GATES..." From an unofficial Jack Higgins site http://www.scintilla.utwente.nl/users/gert/higgins/html/judas.html
Best regards
Chris George
As ever, a fount of useless information!  |
Author: graziano
Monday, 06 August 2001 - 05:28 pm | | Hello Rick,
we should determine how much room there was between the right gate and the wall and see if there was enough of it to allow a person (at least) to hide there while Diemschutz was passing with his costermonger's barrow and then stopping, getting down and looking at the body.
To determine that I think we should find out:
a) how much space there was at that moment between the wall and the "internal extremity" of the right gate (the one that sticks with the left gate when the gateway is closed),
b) how the "external extremity" of the right gate, the one nearest to the wall, was attached to this same wall. It could be right attached to it (thus when wide open not leaving any space on the street side of the gate between the "external extremity" and the wall) or attached to a small portion of wall perpendicular to the side wall of the house (something like a column) thus leaving some space, even when the gate is wide open, between the wall and the "external extremity" of the gate.
For point a) I suggest to look at the distance of the victim's body from the right wall when discovered.
From the transcription of the inquest in the Daily Telegraph we know ( but i do not remember who stated what) that the head was at 6/7 inches (15/20 cm) from it, the body at 1 foot ( +- 30 cm), the legs were drawn up and the feet in extension with the inferior part ot the legs (only the sole were visible).
I deduce (I can't be very far away from the truth) that the feet were more or less at the same distance as the head from the wall, thus 15/20 cm.
This is important because PC Lamb stated at the inquest that he was able to close the gates without disturbing the feet of the victim because the swing of the right one came just under Stride's feet.
In saying so he indirectly tells us that the right gate was so open that its "internal extremity" was nearer to the wall than were the victim's feet, so less than 15/20 cm.
For point b) the only deductions I can make are from the different drawings on the gates published by the newspapers (one is reproduced on the Casebook on the article of introduction for Elisabeth Stride, the others I have seen are in different books but being away I can't give you exact references).
They all agree that the gates had their "external extremity" rightly attached to the side walls of the neighbouring houses.
Thus not leaving any space between them and the wall when wide open or in any case never more than the space left between the "internal extremity" and the wall ( the gates when open forming an oblique axis from the inside of the passage to the street, for the right gate an axis going from left to right ).
Having said that and hoping (but not being sure at all) to have been clear enough I come to the conclusion that there was between the right gate and the wall a space that went from less than 15/20 cm ( internally in the passage) to 0 cm (on the side of the street).
Absolutely not enough for one person to hide there.
BYE. GRAZIANO, |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 11:43 am | | Hello Rick,
of course you could say that PC Lamb came after Diemschutz went in the club to look for help and the right gate was not as closed at first (when Diemschutz discovered the body) as when PC Lamb closed it.
We do not have to forget that we speak about very small measures here.
The entrance of the passage was more or less 9 feet 2 inches ( +- 2.75 meters ), thus one gate was approximatively 1.375 meter.
If the gateway is about 10 meters wide (+- 11 yards), you still can call it "wide open" when there is a 3 feet space between each gate and the neighbouring walls, but in our case if there is more room than 1 feet it's difficult to consider it still "wide open".
I aknowledge that that could be a subjective matter, but not too subjective when the measures are so small.
Then let us not forget another thing, Diemschutz returned to the body ( Daily Telegraph) after having passed it.
It is thus very likely than when he stroke the match he was facing the right gate (standing or crouching behind Stride's head) and not turning his back to it.
Had someone been there he could have seen a shadow at that moment, a match can make a lot of light in a dark and stretch alley (this you can try).
The Judas gate open always to the inside.
Were someone behind the gate, against the wall, he could not have open it to escape.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Rick, Harry, Chris George,do you know by any chance what, on a map like the ones taking into account the dwellings and the shops in the streets (and relating the position of the doors and the number of floors), was the significance of a large cross barring completely a building ? - as for example the one showed in Casebook Productions / Maps / Berner street. Thank you. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 02:50 pm | | Graziano,
your speculating too much for me here. Your calculations must mean a lot of sense to you , I have to admit that most of what I say is guess-work, or the way I think things were. For instance,-- the gates may have opened tight up against the wall on either side, but perhaps the right hand gate had dropped on it's hinges, was catching the ground as it neared the wall on opening, and was leaving a space between wall and back of gate,--just big enough--!!. What if the Judas gate was open, I have known them to be left open permanently. I admire your detailed thinking Graziano, but we are debating something 113yrs away, and things move, people said something at the time they were mistaken about, or didn't mean to say. This wasn't a spectacular murder was it? What could an ordinary bloke like me,-for instance- say about it,--- something frightened my horse,--from the right,-- I looked down and saw a dark shape on the ground. I struck a match,-- before the wind blew it out I saw that it was a woman, I think her throat had been cut,--there was a lot of blood. No, I didn't see anyone else close by,-- I was also concerned about my horse, he was very restless after his fright, my main thought was get indoors and get help, I knew murder had been committed.
Regards Rick |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 04:46 pm | | Hello Rick,
all the points you stated above may be right.
Some seem more likely than others, some less.
And that is what I try to do. Try to look at all the possibilities following and analyzing the material we have at disposal (articles, drawings...) and then eliminating the ones that are less likely than others and keeping the remainder.
I do not claim it to be the right or the best way to come to some results and I do not claim to do it in the best way and I aknowledge that there are maybe some other ways like guess-working and feeling or interviewing or looking for undiscovered documents or whatsoever that could give better results.
What could I say ?
We are not all the same.
And we are all useful one to eachother (at least, that is what I feel).
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: I noticed that you and Harry tend to make your work seem as you say guess-work or gut-feeling work. I tend not to believe you because you both know a lot of details and you make often some very sensitive analysis. Could it be that old british feeling that authority (whatever the field) and thus tradition must never be discussed or threatened ?
Could the choice of your suspect (Joe Barnett) or the one of Harry (Hutchinson), two honest labourer (more or less) coming from the traditional poor classes be a fear that JtR could be the guy that shaked the traditional british feeling of fulfilment and (may I say it, invincibility) ? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 04:46 pm | | Chris,
My wife is a cross word fan, how long do you reckon before she comes across a clue concerned with a Judas Gate?. I shall then come across as the usual smart alec, thanks,!!
Regards Rick |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 05:54 am | | Graziano,
You say Rick and I write from a gut feeling or guesswork,and I don't think that is a fair statement.
We respond to the information available,both in the case of Barnett and Hutchinson.I do not guess that Hutchinson stood oposite Millers court,Hutchinson himself says he did.I do not guess what was in his statement,his statement is there to be read.We draw certain conclusions from the information,as does all contributors to these boards.In the main our conclusions are based on sensible reasoning and experience.We know what it is like to walk gas lit streets,to live in times of squalor and despair.So where is the guesswork.
I don't think your last paragraph means a thing.
Maybe they were two honest labourers,that is your guess,but it is a fact that some of the more notorious crimes were committed by such people.
At least there is a link to one victim through both suspects.A starting point tenuous though it may be,but still a little more than most other potential J.T.R's.
Regards,
Harry. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 04:24 pm | | Hello Harry,
I did not say that with the aim of depreciating your work, not at all, it s a very good work.
As a newcomer I have a lot to understand and learn from people like you, Rick, Jon, Viper and others on this case.
In fact I did not say that at all.
You did it.
At least Rick did it plainly (look the posts above) and it seemed to me that you hinted at it some times ( I remember in one occasion you answered to me that it was difficult for you to believe Hutchinson could see so many details because you were not able to. I tend to believe that this is a conclusion coming more from feeling than analytical deductions ), but I repeat it does not mean that I find it a bad way to go along or that your work is only based on guess-work.
I would not dare and it would be nonsense.
Moreover, whatever some may say, we all start from guessing, just some stop sooner than others or take different conclusions from the same facts.
That's all.
Sorry if you took offence from it. You misenderstood me. Or I did.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.(1): That Barnett and Hutchinson were two honest labourers is not my guess, is a fact.
As far as I know, they were not sentenced to anything for anything during their life period.
Until came some researchers on the Ripper Case some 100 years after their death.
Calomnies ?
Let us hope they do not have any descendant.
P.S.(2): Many criminals come from the labouring classes ?
We should let them work 18 hours a day in the factories and the coal mines, women and kinderen included, they wouldn't have time to go out killing. The jerks !
(come on, Harry, I'm only teasing you.). |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 06:22 pm | | Hello Graziano,
I've got to agree with Harry, we think to much alike for me to disagree with him. I do think he misunderstood you in thinking you thought of him as a guesser. Not Harry,- Graziano,- thats me!!. If the information is there I'll use it, and try to add to it with my sense of logic, if not, I'll guess, logically of course. As far as tradition goes, I like tradition, I don't like privilege, but
one goes with the other, but there are worse regimes than royalty to live with. I'm
comfortable so I'm happy.
Regards Rick.
Graziano, I don't know whether this is too obvious, --a cross on a building on a map, I can only suggest,-- a church |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 06:10 am | | Graziano,
I do not mind being ribbed,and I do not take offence,so don't feel that you offend me.Not so long ago someone wrote that I irritated them,but I write in my own style,and what I write is what I think.
The question of Hutchinson's statement being truthful,lies not only in the observation being brief and in poor light,but also being remembered so clearly some three days afterward.That is a judgement based on experience.I would like to meet the person that could duplicate the feat.
Rick and I agree on many things.We are of a similar age and lived through similar experiencies.I do not think it accidental that we think of a similar type of killer.
Regards,
Harry. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 02:57 pm | | Hello Harry and Rick,
of course it was not to the royal regime in UK I was referring when speaking of authority.
I would not do it using these boards.
In fact I would not do it at all.
I have not forgotten that it was one of your kings that signed the "Magna Charta" (maybe not very willing and soon forgetting it, but nevertheless), and whatever say the Greeks, they wrote about Democracy while their slaves were washing their feet.
It was about the moral authority that someone like me (a newcomer) feels on these boards coming from persons like M. Fido, D. Rumbelow, S. Evans, P. Begg and others.
Of course they have made a huge and fantastic job and they surely deserve the title of kings for our case.
I am not sure that without them this case would still be open.
My point is that the problem with authority is that after some time what it say becomes a dogma and no one even think to question about it.
I do not remember where I did read a list (written by one of the above mentioned persons) of "the things that should never been said about JtR".
One of the argument that such a list claimed as aberration was : "Jack was more than one".
There is where I wonder if people like you or all the other people that are well familiar with these boards and with those "kings" are stucked with the moral impossibility to even consider another solution to the one considering the unicity of JtR.
And I even wonder if this has not prevented a faster solution to the case (which I feel is very near).
That for the choice of one (whoever) Jack.
As a newcomer I can tell I was quite amazed in seing so many people (and I may say quite clever)believing one person able to kill so many times in such a way without making the least noise or being nor even only spotted in such sites.
It is only forgetting that these women had one mouth, two arms with hands and two legs with feet covered by heavy boots and that they were quite used to fight.
To my guess only a powerful moral authority could explain such a belief.
As for the choice of Barnett or Hutchinson, I was only wondering if this could not be an elegant move of self-defense.
Could JtR have done what an Invincible Armada or a French Emperor did not manage to do ?
Could JtR be unconsciously the little scratch that shows that everything was not perfect in this "brrritish pink (why pink Rick ?) world shown in the maps" ?
Well, if this is it, be Jack english (but let us not go too far, hey, british, yes, but labourer).
God save the Kings of the Casebook.
We have managed to save our pride.
Bye.
An Italian.
A Labourer. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 05:59 am | | Graziano,
It is not a case of follow the leader in concluding a singular individual as JTR.Nor is it the folklore which stipulated 'Jack'and not 'Jacks',and that from people alive at the time.
I would hope that each poster comes to his or her own conclusion based on what is known or interpreted.
Hutchinson is only put forward as a suspect,and I do not think there will ever be evidence that will convincingly prove or disprove that position.
It is not often that I am wrong,but I know that I am right this time.(jokingly)
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 03:42 pm | | What concerns me about the claims that view Jack was disturbed by Deimshult's (Real name was pronounced: Deimslit's). Is that these claims very often comes from those who also view that Jack's main tool was his stealth.
So let's get this straight. Jack The Ripper, was suddenly disturbed by a man who was clip clopping towards him at about 14 miles per hour, on a horse and cart and on a cobble-stone road.
It simply does not make sense!
Why did Goldstien stay on the right side of the road untill he had passed the club before crossing over into Fairclought Street.
Most people taking the left Junction into Fairclough Street cross over Berner Street well before they reach the entrance to the club, simply because its quicker.
Remember, Goldstien seemed to be such in a hurry, so why stay on the right side untill he reached the end of the road?
Why did he wait until the following evening to report that he had passed the club when the murders were common knowledge to everyone early in the morning?
Why did he not report that he passed a couple standing on the corner, they might have been key witnesses?
Why did he go to the Police Station and the newpapers with a known anarchist, William Wess who described himself as a 'hooligan'?
ED |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 11:13 pm | | Simon,
If you read graziano's message of 23 July it is pretty clear he feels Ed (I'm assuming E Carter) has made a major discovery or breakthrough as to the identity, motive, and tactics of JtR. As best I can glean from graziano's enthusiastic but cryptic response, there must be evidence JtR was the leader of a gang or group who participated in the crimes. This seems to point in the direction of Euro-Jewish anarchists who are trying to discomfit the Anglo-Jewish community. Evidently Ed has a photo of JtR and compelling evidence to support this theory.
Ed and graziano: when will you be ready to share this information with the rest of us? |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 06:14 am | | Ed,
As Diemschutz was approacing a reasonably narrow entranceway,into which he was going to turn,do'nt you think 14 miles per hour an exageration.The poor horse had already,like it's driver,been out many hours.Man and beast likely were that tired,4 miles per hour may have been an effort.
Also the killer could not be sure the the cart would turn in to the yard,but surely stealth would be necessary when it did.
No,stealth was not the only attribute of the killer,but it would have helped a lot.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 12:37 pm | | Hello Robeer,
I never stated something in a cryptic way and never will be.
I think it would be lack of respect towards the other posters and the administrators of this site and all the people who work for it.
If something is not clear is because I must write in english (your fault) and I can't do it in italian or french.
Just ask me to clarify. I will do.
That JtR was a gang with a leader is something that I have always been convinced of.
Till last year ( when I did not really know the case ) before buying quite by accident Sugden's book I was sure that it was the "Royal conspiration" and that it was an ascertained truth.
Then, after having read Sugden's book, and seeing how the women were killed I was sure it was a gang but unable to explain how.
Ed's posts on these boards answered all my questions.
Yes, I am convinced that he discovered who, how and why (but not sure he discovered every hidden aspect of the case - there are so many).
But this is only an opinion.
I do not know the real identity of Jack.
I do not think it is very important to go back in time to discover what happened in 1888 in the East End of London.
World keep changing, not human nature.
1888 is not very far in the past.
And London is not very far away ( valid only for europeans).
I do not hide any information.
There is plenty of it in the Casebook.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Let us become Jack the Ripper for a moment. We have enticed Stride, into the alley. But firstly, why did we decide to kill her in the entrance instead of further back in the yard, where we could have then mutilated her in safety? Answer! Because when Fanny opened her door, the two men who had just carried Liz past Fanny's house, quickly ran into the alley and dropped her the entrance!
This also answers many witness statements claiming that 'it looked as if Liz had been laid there'! And it informs us why Liz only had mud only directly beneath her body and head.
It informs us why Liz had bruising under and over the clavicles! Because she was carried by two men; one holding her upper torso gripping under and over the shoulders! And why both her legs were flexed to the left and her toes pointing down! This was because the man carrying her lower torso held her under the knees whist carrying Liz along. Gravity simply pulled her forefeet and toes downward!
As they the killers her down in the entrance, they were moving towards the right wall of the club. This is why both Liz's legs were thrown over to the left!
If the killer had been with Liz in the entrance, and thought that Deimshults was suddenly going to enter Dutfields yard. He might have suggested moving further back. If he had decided to attack her, Liz would have both struggled and screamed! The screams would have been heard by both Deimshults and the people upstairs in the club! And Liz would have been discovered covered in mud! ED. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 07:36 pm | | Dear Graziano,
Then you can answer this question:Why did Jack the Ripper want the uterii?
Was it (a) to make a candle for an obscure magic
purpose (b)to perform a sexual act(c)a trophy (d)
because he was insane?
Any of the above answers provide 'meaning' to the motive of the killer(s)...and the more insane Jack seems to have been!
Rosey :-) |
Author: graziano
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 04:02 am | | Hello Rosey,
sincerely and from a personal point of view, ......I don t know.
I lean for that on Ed s theory.
Once again and from my point of view is the most convincing.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 05:19 am | | Hello Rosey,
but I repeat: one of them was absolutely insane (the others where also quite tough).
He could have done more than what was strictly necessary.
If he is the guy whose photo I received yesterday from Ed (and I have a deep impression he is) it's together amazing and scaring.
Such an angel face.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 09:05 am | | Hello Robeer,
in fact there is another thing that I do not know and not manage to know: Robeer, is it a boy's or a girl's name ?
I asked to an american here in Prague but she told me it depends how you pronounce it ??????
(and your profile on the Casebook does not help very much).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 10:27 am | | Graziano, I have a newspaper article interviewing Jack, the reporter leaves the interview totally stunned by Jack's quiet intelligence!
I still have the article!
Rosie, at interview, most people sell skills towards a certain job description.
I happen to have a job that has geared a job description towards my skills.
I could explain why the killers took the uterus from Chapman and the kidney from Eddows, I do not have the time.
I would have to leave my job to explain the above actions properly.
Therefore as I do not want to leave at present! The best I can do is to try to help anyone interested to find Jack! Take it or leave it! Best Wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 11:18 am | | Rosie,
and by the way, at 46, finding new openings as
'The village idiot' does not come that easy! ED |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 06:33 am | | Ed
We are all interested in finding Jack.As you say you have compleyed the task,please let the rest of us into the secret.Who was he.
Was it the horse?.(only joking!only joking!.)
Refer to the evidence of Dr.Bagster Phillips.He does speak of a bluish discolouration on both shoulders,under the collar bone and in front of the chest,but also says there was no recent external injury,save to the neck.So were the marks consistant with time of death?.
Also does the lack of recent external injury,rule out a vicious drunken attack,and also the throwing of the body to the ground.If either occured, surely there would have been evidence of such.Except for mud and neck wounds,Stride seemed to be free of recent contact.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 12:55 pm | | Harry, Blackwell, described bluish discolorations under and over the collar bones as 'pressure marks'.
If the source of this pressure, or in that case, the source of any bruising or grazing had been applied after death, no marks would have been left! This is because these marks are created by venous pressure, and after death there are neither arterial or venous pressures.
All the evidence strongly indicates that the pressure marks were made just prior to death; and they were; by the man who carried Strides upper torso past Fanny Mortimer's house.
The reason that no noise was heard in the alley was because Liz was chloroformed to the left of Fanny's house; towards the Commercial Road. Two men then moved Liz passed Fanny's house holding her recently chloroformed and sagging body, by the upper torso and legs.
The man holding her upper torso had positioned his hands under the arms, then gripped over her shoulders. When Fanny suddenly opened her door and the killers dashed into the alley.(This is why Fanny saw no one!)
The fingers and the heels of the man that was holding Stride's upper torso gripped into the flesh, under and over her clavicles the extra 'pressure' for those few seconds, caused 'pressure marks'.
Something essential has been missed from Fanny's statement, probably because it seems of little importance, re-read it.
Best wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 03:52 pm | | Graziano and Harry. Graziano, remember there were also other killers, the photo I sent to you reveals the man noted by Mrs Long and Hutchinson!
Harry, first obtain several photo's concerning Mary Kelly's murder, I will then advise you what happened. The sheets directly between her legs are absolutely crucial. Remember, every picture tells a story! Best wishes ED. |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 10:31 pm | | With all respect to Mr. Carter, there is no evidence to suggest that what he says above is true. Nobody saw two people carrying Stride. The marks on her clavicles could have been caused in various ways, such as by a single man frog-marching her from behind, by a single man pushing her down onto the ground from behind, or by other ways. Ms Mortimer did not report unusual activity near her house or sense any motions related to two men handling a woman nearby.
Whenever you attempt to add evidence to this case, you invariably fail. This has been proven absolutely over the past 120 years. If you want the solution, you must solve it within the accepted casebook. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Suggestion: Instead of adding evidence, why not subtract some? Try to solve the case on LESS than what is available. Exercise conservatism.
David |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 02:32 am | | David, no one saw two people carry Stride, but Fanny Mortimer certainly heard them!
What sounds just like the heavy measured tramp of a policeman? The answer: two people carrying Liz passed Fanny's house!
Do you really believe that Stride allowed someone to 'frog-march her into the alley? Wouldn't she have screamed her head off! Then, or whilst he used both his hands to push her down to the floor?
Why wasn't Liz covered in mud?
Why did she retain the sweets in her left hand?
Why was her right hand over her chest?
David, are you 'nucking fut's, or are you sure you are not a 'Wolfy Van Linden' in disguise?
|
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 07:22 am | | | Sorry, I am wrong, the couple on the corner saw Liz carried into the alley, but then again, they were supposed to, that'swhy they were there in the first place! Best wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 07:23 am | | | Best wishes ED. |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 12:57 pm | | Well, she wasn't covered in mud, IMHO, because she went to the alley voluntarily. Wasn't the measured tramp of the policeman going in the wrong direction, away from the arch? I don't know what you mean concerning Mr. Vanlinden. I am a bit unusual though, I'll admit. I'm sort of a Bill Murray type of guy--somone liking a bit of absurd humor occasionally. Silly walks, Norwegian Blue, that sort of thing.
David |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 03:03 pm | | David, is this the right room for an argument?
Did Liz then also lay down in the mud voluntarily? No she was dropped!
Fanny said 'I heard the heavy measured tramp of a policeman, then I went ''immediately'' to my front door'. Had the steps Fanny heard been going towards Fairclought Street or towards Commercial Road, Fanny should have seen the person making the noise before they reached the first exit from Berner Street.
Concerning two people: Let's briefly compare the position of the dresses; beginning with of Eddows.
The sketches show that she is lying on her back, arms to the side, one leg is almost straight the other is flexed at the hip.(which is very strange!).
The killer has ripped the dress open down the front exposing her entire body, the hemline has made its way up and lies under her legs, just beneath the knees.
This hemline would not have arrived up under her legs due to either a fall or a push!
And if you think about it, if the killer could have accessed her entire body (in order to either mutilate, or sexually assault her) by ripping the front open. For what purpose did he need to lift the hemline of her dress?
As with Martha, Polly, Annie and Stride the killer who carried her legs--in this case it was from a small alley at the back of the Imperial Club--to the corner of Mitre Square, first lifted the hemline of her long Victorian dress in order to grip under her knees. When they laid her down the hemline simply stayed there.
The dress was ripped from the collar downwards and we can prove this by examining the sketches with great care!
But at the moment I have to go to work Best wishes ED.
PS advice do not look back to dogs and fingerprints, look forward using proper analysis!
And remember 'De Mortis Nil Nisi Bonum': Always speak good of the dead! I'v been dying to say that since I read it in Chambers! |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 03:16 pm | | | Ed, are you suggesting that Eddowes was carried to Mitre Square? |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 03:28 pm | | Hi, Scott:
I believe Ed is suggesting that a number of the victims were carried to the place they were found by two men, "killers" as he terms them. This of course explains the witness statements about women being carried around by two men.  There were, of course, no such witness statements.
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 04:03 pm | | I was just going over a copy of the Woodford Times, Sept. 14th 1888, and was horrified to read the following concerning the murder of Chapman...
"...by those who know the place well it is believed that the woman was murdered in the street and afterwards carried into the passage. This view is, to a certain extent, borne out by traces of blood, which reach to the street. There is, moreover, nothing in the appearance of a struggle."
Thought it might wet someone's appetite
Regards, Jon |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 09:23 pm | | The killer likely walked up past Ms Mortimer and hung a quick left into Sanders Street. That gets him out of the way of her vision quickly. The heavy measured tread of the policeman was in fact that of the murderer, moving resolutely away from the scene of the crime. There really aren't many places he could get to after passing her without her seeing him other than Sanders Street, unless he quickly ducked into a house or an eave somewhere. He might have walked down Berner and hung a right at the tavern instead. That would have got him away from Fanny, but would put another man on the street to be accounted for (the one heard by her.) I believe the murderer understood the value of turning quickly after leaving a murder scene. He wouldn't want to leave a longing view of himself on the same street he'd committed a murder, or anywhere else for that matter.
David |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 03:34 am | | Chris after reading my reasoning, do you view that I came to these conclusions by reading the witness statements?
I know the difference between graphology and document analysis! Best wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 03:42 am | | | Jon, there were no traces of blood in the passageway! However; Chapman; as were all these women, was lifted by two men. Best wishes ED. |
|
|
|
|
