Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Michael W Richards]

We don't know that they weren't killed by the same man either, but that doesn't stop you patronizing anyone who does examine the evidence and find this to be work of a serial killer. As I said before, Michael, if it was down to you there wouldn't have been a Yorkshire Ripper because he used different weapons and methods when dispatching his victims. Now compare that to a group of women all murdered within walking distance of one another, their throats cut and their bodies mutilated.

Your belief that the evidence reveals a serial killer within these Unsolved Files I agree with, there are at least 2 to my eye...1 man that killed 2 or 3 Canonicals and one man or more that made people into Torsos. That being said, its clear to anyone who can read that at least 3 of the Five Canonicals have case evidence that concerns their murders in terms of possible alternative explanations to the over arching assumptions by many that a morphing maniac changes his stripes every subsequent kill. Liz, Kate and Mary all have extremely recent separations from their mates, for one, and all 3 of these women have characteristics that are unique to each respective murder, characteristics that do not suggest the same killer who found his victims soliciting, and then killed consecutive victims in almost identical fashion.

You believe cutting is the definitive variable that shows us serial activity? Almost every man in that area had, or could get, knives. Many of them were criminals, some who were later revealed to be killers. All these bad guys stayed off the streets so one madman could own the neighborhood? Does that really sound plausible to you?


Let's assume, arguendo, that you're right about Schwartz and he was a phony witness designed to draw suspicion away from the club. This doesn't by itself prove that the murderer was connected to the club at all. It could mean that a murder had been committed on their premises and they didn't want the police to have an excuse to shut them down. At least we both cast doubts over Schwartz's credibility. I, myself, find it mighty convenient that he happened to witness an assault when no one else nearby saw or heard anything, and the only word out of the man's mouth was an anti-semitic slur. However, I draw the line at believing the entire thing was a conspiracy theory.

If Schwartz lied, or was convinced to lie, it was to save the club. Or someone at it. There is no reason to dismiss this as a real possibility since Israels sighting is nowhere to be found in the Inquest data available, and the club and its members were perceived as Anarchists before any murder happened. When added to the fact that one of the most credible statements corroborates others that suggest the street was almost certainly empty of people other than the young couple after the last legitimate sighting of Liz at 12:35. If she isn't seen within the 25 minutes that exists before Louis said he arrives, then it stands to reason she is already in the passageway when she met her killer, and that the killer was already on the premises...because there is nobody but Israel that states anyone was on the street during that time aside from the young couple.

Regards

[c.d.]

"...and Ive found agreement with that conclusion by many here who by virtue of their work in this field are considered experts."

Hello Michael,

Who exactly would these "experts" be?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

if the club or any of its members had anything to do with strides murder, wouldn't the easiest, safest thing to do is to remove her body and put it away from the club?Like with Diemshitz cart perhaps? and keep your mouths shut?Instead of some convoluted conspiracy?

Her blood ran down their gutter inside the gate for almost 20 feet. What...just suck that up with straws and spit into the street?

[Michael W Richards]

"...and Ive found agreement with that conclusion by many here who by virtue of their work in this field are considered experts."

Hello Michael,

Who exactly would these "experts" be?

c.d.

Since you asked...I love having this in my pocket at all times, one expert is Stewart Evans, who when asked directly by me on this forum about how many victims he believed should be attributed to Jack he said 2, perhaps 3.

Im very comfortable agreeing with that whole heartedly, and with the company I keep whilst doing it.

With all due respect, I don't put anyones opinions about these cases above this individual, since I feel he is arguably the most informed person on this subject anywhere, and extremely credible as such.

Another gentleman who agrees with this thinking is Simon Wood, again, a highly respected and very well informed contributor to the topic. Im happy to agree with Simons dissent from most of the accepted nonsense as well.

My apologies to Stewart for re-offering an opinion he gave to me here many years ago.

[Michael W Richards]

Stride's murder was the third (if you include Tabram) in a similar series in a short period of time. So it is hard to believe, as Abby says, that they felt the onus of guilt so much so that they took the extremely risk move to concoct a phony story rather than simply cooperate with the police as much as possible.

c.d.

You know this would have been so much easier before Ripperologists created a killer that has no fixed MO or Signature, doesn't repeat crimes, has skill and knowledge that increases then decreases then increases, and varies his victims from women in their forties outdoors to a woman in her twenties in her own bed.

This Canonical theory does not now, nor has it ever, been sustainable by review of the known evidence. Why do we need to re-hash failed premises?

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I don't recall ever seeing a post to that effect by Stewart. Maybe it was before I came on board. Can you direct us to it? Thanks.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes have been proposed by myself & others as the only truly reliable Ripper victims since the late 90's.
This, primarily because there has always been a bit of doubt about Kelly.
You don't need to be an 'expert' to see the evidence behind that belief.

[c.d.]

You know this would have been so much easier before Ripperologists created a killer that has no fixed MO or Signature, doesn't repeat crimes, has skill and knowledge that increases then decreases then increases, and varies his victims from women in their forties outdoors to a woman in her twenties in her own bed.

This Canonical theory does not now, nor has it ever, been sustainable by review of the known evidence. Why do we need to re-hash failed premises?

Hello Michael,

Except that that response doesn't really explain why the club apparently felt the need to do what you believe they did.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I don't recall ever seeing a post to that effect by Stewart. Maybe it was before I came on board. Can you direct us to it? Thanks.

c.d.

It was around 2004-2006 cd, I don't recall exactly when but I feel sure enough about the facts to include his name with my remarks.

cheers

[c.d.]

It was around 2004-2006 cd, I don't recall exactly when but I feel sure enough about the facts to include his name with my remarks.

cheers

Hello Michael,

I certainly share your opinion regarding Stewart so it it too bad that you couldn't reproduce his post exactly. His opinion carries a great deal of weight.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes have been proposed by myself & others as the only truly reliable Ripper victims since the late 90's.
This, primarily because there has always been a bit of doubt about Kelly.
You don't need to be an 'expert' to see the evidence behind that belief.

And your beliefs whatever they are do not put you in the expert category Jon, just because some "others" agree with you. No offense intended..but your opinion isn't in that same league as Mr Evans's is.

There is more than a bit of doubt about Kelly...her murder has none of the prerequisite markers and all the signs of a killer known intimately by her. As for Stride....well lets just say Im glad people haven't started including victims with skinned knees or paper cuts in the Canonicals..yet.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Except that that response doesn't really explain why the club apparently felt the need to do what you believe they did.

c.d.

Do I really have to say again that these club members were seen as "low men" and Anarchists before any killings took place, and prominent witnesses in the Stride murder attack police with clubs the following year. Louis got pay for his work at the club...so did Morris...so did Wess in the backyard. So did Mrs D. So, likely, did Isaac K. All that flies out the window if the most obvious answer to who killed Liz was believed...that it was probably someone from that club. Israels statement was supposed to deflect that suspicion....and his absence from all Inquest records suggests his story wasn't supported fully by investigators. So what did they really believe?

Maybe the coppers created a myth to work clandestinely behind.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Well that brings up the question -- if the police concluded that Schwartz had lied to them and he was covering for the club, why didn't they do anything about it? In other words, go after the club?

c.d.

[Rosella]

Even 'experts' on this unsolved series of murders can be fallible and 'gasp' even outright wrong in their interpretations. It's always comforting if their conclusions fit in with your beliefs, as well. (I've done this myself, in examining other famous murders and reading accounts of them.)

[Wickerman]

And your beliefs whatever they are do not put you in the expert category Jon, just because some "others" agree with you. No offense intended..but your opinion isn't in that same league as Mr Evans's is.

There is more than a bit of doubt about Kelly...her murder has none of the prerequisite markers and all the signs of a killer known intimately by her. As for Stride....well lets just say Im glad people haven't started including victims with skinned knees or paper cuts in the Canonicals..yet.

The point you appear to be sidestepping is, that people who are not considered 'experts' had long since arrived at the same opinion. So what value can there be to the point you were trying to make?
And, I do know from Stewarts own lips himself, that even he does not consider himself an 'expert'.

What exactly is an 'expert' Michael, maybe we can all learn something here?