Changing Your Mind

[Michael W Richards]

It seems this point has difficulty landing on some posters, so....there is no-one who saw Louis arrive, Morris arrive, Lave standing by the gates, or Israel, BSM, or Pipeman. All these witness events are claimed to have happened at the 12:40-12:45 time period, excluding Louis who by his account stated that he didn't arrive until "precisely 1". They are all individuals providing accounts without any corroboration whatsoever. An eye witness can be used to verify the circumstances on Berner Street from 12:50 until 1am...later CORROBERATED BY Goldstein.. That witness does not see or hear any cart arrive during that time. 4 witnesses claimed that they were in the passageway,...(most whose initial statements were taken within an hour of the murder), with other people gathered around the dead/dying woman... including Louis, at 12:40-12:45. Issac Kozebrodski says later that night he was there in the passageway at 12:40-12:45 and Louis sends him out to look for help, he does not say anyone accompanied him.

Not one club staffer said they saw anyone else, (not even the young couple seen by Fanny and James Brown), nor did anyone see what the club staffers (Louis, Morris..perhaps Lave as photographer) claim occurred, including when they arrived at the scene. Not one person saw, or heard, anything Israel described.

The preponderance of evidence given by eye witnesses suggest a discovery time of somewhere between Liz Strides last legitimate sighting, 12:35, and 12:40-12:45, when we have a plethora of stories...that by their contents, suggest something quite different than the accounts by those who made regular money from an open and operating Mens club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed - Sugar Mice, one of my all time favourite tunes.
Regards Darryl

Everyone a classic Darryl. Love Marillion but I think Straws is my favourite album.

Apologies to all for the diversion.

[Jon Guy]

Jon, I meant to identify or suggest someone can be considered a suspect based on the hat he is seen wearing.

Thanks Mike, but he`s a suspect because he was seen with a victim, and not because of his hat.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Mike, but he`s a suspect because he was seen with a victim, and not because of his hat.

The hat is used to match suspects from other sightings at other murders Jon, that's really my issue. The fact that these are in most cases the last person seen with the victim really doesn't make them anything more than persons of interest, someone to interview, only in the case of Stride do we have a witness claim to see the soon to be victim being assaulted by what would be the last man seen with her, and thus he would become a legitimate "suspect".

Too bad that was apparently a false alarm.

[Jon Guy]

The hat is used to match suspects from other sightings at other murders Jon, that's really my issue. The fact that these are in most cases the last person seen with the victim really doesn't make them anything more than persons of interest, someone to interview, only in the case of Stride do we have a witness claim to see the soon to be victim being assaulted by what would be the last man seen with her, and thus he would become a legitimate "suspect".

Too bad that was apparently a false alarm.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying your stance, Mike

[c.d.]

Bingo !!

Hello Jon,

Maybe you missed my earlier reply to Abby on this point so I will repost it.

That is possible but seems extremely unlikely. Schwartz would have been grilled very hard on that point. Since Swanson allows for the possibility of another killer it must have been very clear from Schwartz that Stride was alive when he ran off.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Everyone knows that based on only the evidence in this case, not as one half of a Double Event, or a presumed obvious case of a murder by an abdominal mutilator, there is no reason at all to conclude we must look for a serial mutilator who almost decapitates women with cuts and then opens their abdomens.

Hello Michael,

A hypothetical for you if you will. If three or four men came out of the club and saw the killer in the process of raising her skirts with knife poised above her abdomen and he ran off as they yelled and approached would you conclude that the killer couldn't have been Jack because he didn't mutilate her?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Everyone knows that based on only the evidence in this case, not as one half of a Double Event, or a presumed obvious case of a murder by an abdominal mutilator, there is no reason at all to conclude we must look for a serial mutilator who almost decapitates women with cuts and then opens their abdomens.

Hello Michael,

A hypothetical for you if you will. If three or four men came out of the club and saw the killer in the process of raising her skirts with knife poised above her abdomen and he ran off as they yelled and approached would you conclude that the killer couldn't have been Jack because he didn't mutilate her?

c.d.

Well cd, if you add in that evidence, then I would have to consider that the killer sought to mutilate her abdomen too. However....Liz Stride is found on her side...like no other Ripper victim, her skirts are not raised...as in no other street victim of Jacks, she has her knees drawn into her body...unlike any other Ripper murder, and she is untouched after the single cut to her throat,...once again, UNLIKE any Ripper victim. Oh, and that single cut is important.

The night she is killed on and the general climate of fear and uncertainty inserted Liz Stride into this Ripper mess, not how she dies.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon,

Maybe you missed my earlier reply to Abby on this point so I will repost it.

That is possible but seems extremely unlikely. Schwartz would have been grilled very hard on that point. Since Swanson allows for the possibility of another killer it must have been very clear from Schwartz that Stride was alive when he ran off.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Yes, I had seen your post and am aware of your stance on the subject. I won`t attempt to change your mind or somehow convince you otherwise, as you are using the facts to hand. But ....is it extremely unlikely that Schwartz witnessed Stride`s murder without realising it ? Isn`t it more unlikely that Stride is attacked TWICE on the same spot within 15 mins ?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi c.d.

Yes, I had seen your post and am aware of your stance on the subject. I won`t attempt to change your mind or somehow convince you otherwise, as you are using the facts to hand. But ....is it extremely unlikely that Schwartz witnessed Stride`s murder without realising it ? Isn`t it more unlikely that Stride is attacked TWICE on the same spot within 15 mins ?

It highly probable Israel Schwartz didnt witness anything, at least not what he described via his translator, so neither premise has any real traction. There is no evidence that could be used to support a claim she was attacked twice in 15 minutes, nor is there anything in the Inquest files that indicate that Liz was seen alive by anyone after 12:35.

[Losmandris]

Hi c.d.

Yes, I had seen your post and am aware of your stance on the subject. I won`t attempt to change your mind or somehow convince you otherwise, as you are using the facts to hand. But ....is it extremely unlikely that Schwartz witnessed Stride`s murder without realising it ? Isn`t it more unlikely that Stride is attacked TWICE on the same spot within 15 mins ?

That is if the run in with BS man really was an 'attack' and not just a scuffle, i.e. a man pushing away a drunken prostitute, who had decided to proposition him.

Tristan

[Losmandris]

I thought I’d ask for examples where posters have changed their minds on a particular topic over the years. Whether it’s on the validity of a suspect or a witness’s testimony or something like the GSG. I got to thinking about this because it’s happened to me over the last couple of days. It’s about Liz Stride.

Ive always been pretty strongly in the ‘killed by the ripper’ camp. Never near 100% but probably 75% or so. Two prostitute throat cuttings within such a close distance and within such a short space of time and with Diemschutz as a plausible explanation for a killer being interrupted and who went on to look for another victim. For no real reason I kept thinking about the location of Liz’s murder and doubts began to grow to the extent that I’m now in the ‘not killed by the ripper’ camp. Certainly nowhere near 100% but I’ve certainly crossed over. For the time being at least

Nichols was killed in a quiet street in an area in shadows with (as Steve Blomer pointed out in his book) numerous potential escape routes should he have been interrupted. Chapman was killed in a backyard and I have no problem at all imagining her telling her killer that she’d used the yard numerous times and never been interrupted. Eddowes was killed in a darkened corner of a square with three possible escape routes and Kelly was killed indoors (apologies for restating what you all know by the way) But Stride’s location stands out. At the side of a busy Jewish Socialist club with music going on inside and with a door just feet away through which anyone could step at any time. Just a few feet away in the other direction a large open gate with people walking past. So could I imagine the ripper mutilating Liz’s body in that location? I just can’t imagine a worse location apart from outside of a police station of course. All of the murders entailed risk. It went with the territory. But with the other 4 murders I can see the ripper judging them as manageable risks (yes, I’m someone who has had to fill in far too many dreaded risk assessment forms over the years) I just can’t see the Berner Street location as manageable but I can see someone cutting someone’s throat in the heat of an alcohol-fuelled argument perhaps?

Theres no problem with changing your mind of course.

So Herlock was is the theory around Liz having her throat cut in a drunken argument? Is she killed by someone she knows or by a punter, she had just picked up? How could the theory fit in with the known facts? Would love to know your thoughts! Talk us through them.

Tristan

[Jon Guy]

That is if the run in with BS man really was an 'attack' and not just a scuffle, i.e. a man pushing away a drunken prostitute, who had decided to proposition him.

Tristan

Well, if we take the incident as described by Schwartz, at the very least it was an attack, and certainly not just a scuffle.

[Losmandris]

Well, if we take the incident as described by Schwartz, at the very least it was an attack, and certainly not just a scuffle.

Really? I wonder if due to the fact that he was new to the country he may not have been use to seeing casual street violence, that was no doubt prevalent in the area at the time. Therefore he could have interpreted it as something that it was not. This could explain whey he very rapidly drops off the police radar after the event. I don't think the police saw the incident as anything but a scuffle, certainly not someone either witnessing an actual murder or the prelude to murder.

Tristan

[Abby Normal]

I thought I’d ask for examples where posters have changed their minds on a particular topic over the years. Whether it’s on the validity of a suspect or a witness’s testimony or something like the GSG. I got to thinking about this because it’s happened to me over the last couple of days. It’s about Liz Stride.

Ive always been pretty strongly in the ‘killed by the ripper’ camp. Never near 100% but probably 75% or so. Two prostitute throat cuttings within such a close distance and within such a short space of time and with Diemschutz as a plausible explanation for a killer being interrupted and who went on to look for another victim. For no real reason I kept thinking about the location of Liz’s murder and doubts began to grow to the extent that I’m now in the ‘not killed by the ripper’ camp. Certainly nowhere near 100% but I’ve certainly crossed over. For the time being at least

Nichols was killed in a quiet street in an area in shadows with (as Steve Blomer pointed out in his book) numerous potential escape routes should he have been interrupted. Chapman was killed in a backyard and I have no problem at all imagining her telling her killer that she’d used the yard numerous times and never been interrupted. Eddowes was killed in a darkened corner of a square with three possible escape routes and Kelly was killed indoors (apologies for restating what you all know by the way) But Stride’s location stands out. At the side of a busy Jewish Socialist club with music going on inside and with a door just feet away through which anyone could step at any time. Just a few feet away in the other direction a large open gate with people walking past. So could I imagine the ripper mutilating Liz’s body in that location? I just can’t imagine a worse location apart from outside of a police station of course. All of the murders entailed risk. It went with the territory. But with the other 4 murders I can see the ripper judging them as manageable risks (yes, I’m someone who has had to fill in far too many dreaded risk assessment forms over the years) I just can’t see the Berner Street location as manageable but I can see someone cutting someone’s throat in the heat of an alcohol-fuelled argument perhaps?

Theres no problem with changing your mind of course.

hi hs
I don't see dutfield yard as any more risky then hanbury back yard. OK maybe a little but not much. hanbury its getting light and there are people already stirring for work. and also only one way in and out.

however, im not sure the ripper and stride even made it into the yard together-I think the initial attack may have occurred on the sidewalk/street. perhaps she actually had her throat cut there, the ripper bolts and she makes her way into the yard toward perceived help but expires in the yard.

I could also imagine a scenario where after the initial attack that Schwartz witnessed, stride goes into the yard and is quickly followed by BS man who then cuts her throat there.

less likely scenario is after the initial attack they calm down and stride agrees to accompany him into the yard where he cuts her throat.

one things for sure, at least to me, stride was killed by BS man who was probably the ripper.