Changing Your Mind

[Jon Guy]

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

I don`t know .. some of the places these immigrants arrived from were pretty bad places, some of these places were worse than Liverpool. But yes, Schwartz may have been extra paranoid.

[erobitha]

Stride was a ripper victim. He thought he had more time but was interrupted in the act. The fact he was cornered in literally a blind alley and managed to still escape is breath taking really. I'm certain if he had 5 more minutes he would have done his usual fancy knife work. Matthew Packer was dismissed far too easily as a witness for my liking. The grape stems WERE in her hand depsite that this was not said at the inquest. Instead some alcohiolic medium was given credence and he wasn't - why? The inquest clearly mentions the fruit stains and the grape skins in her stomach, but apparently Matthew Packer is an unreliable witness. Why was he so easily dismissed? Also if Israel Schwartz was such a reliable witness (there is no railway arch on Berner Street by the way) why did he not give testimony at Stride's inquest but suddenly disappeared of the face of the earth? Matthew Packer was met by "private detectives" after a journalist printed his account in the newspaper and taken to Scotland Yard where a statement was taken that he never signed, seemed to deliberately undermine the events as he told them to the journalist. Something fishy going on here. It was raining as Packer described, Strides clothes were soaked through with rain and blood. And there were grapes. Matthew Packer's witness testimony (in the paper) is arguably the best we have yet at describing the killer. The drawing then published in The Telegraph from his description is also the best image we have yet of the suspect. The killer was no crazy-eyed jew.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

I don’t really have a theory Tristan and I’m nowhere near certain that she wasn’t a ripper victim. I just have doubts due to the location which seems to me to be more risky than the other murder sites. This is nowhere near conclusive of course. I’m also always a bit wary of trying to read a crime scene to try and reconstruct what exactly happened. I can’t really see anything that would conclusively prove that she wasn’t killed as a result of some kind of argument with someone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hi Abby,

You could be right of course. I just endlessly waiver on this one and it’s only the location which has tipped me slightly one way. I certainly understand your point about Hanbury Street but I’d just say that it’s not just a question of how risky the location was but how risky the killer would have perceived it to have been. In the case of Hanbury Street I could easily imagine Annie, desperate for cash, telling him that she used the yard regularly and that no one ever interrupted her before. This would have given him a level of confidence. It’s hard to imagine Liz persuading a potential mutilator (needing 5 minutes or so) that this was a safe spot next to a busy club with a door just a few feet away and a large open gateway onto the street.

[Michael W Richards]

Stride was a ripper victim. He thought he had more time but was interrupted in the act. The fact he was cornered in literally a blind alley and managed to still escape is breath taking really. I'm certain if he had 5 more minutes he would have done his usual fancy knife work. Matthew Packer was dismissed far too easily as a witness for my liking. The grape stems WERE in her hand depsite that this was not said at the inquest. Instead some alcohiolic medium was given credence and he wasn't - why? The inquest clearly mentions the fruit stains and the grape skins in her stomach, but apparently Matthew Packer is an unreliable witness. Why was he so easily dismissed? Also if Israel Schwartz was such a reliable witness (there is no railway arch on Berner Street by the way) why did he not give testimony at Stride's inquest but suddenly disappeared of the face of the earth? Matthew Packer was met by "private detectives" after a journalist printed his account in the newspaper and taken to Scotland Yard where a statement was taken that he never signed, seemed to deliberately undermine the events as he told them to the journalist. Something fishy going on here. It was raining as Packer described, Strides clothes were soaked through with rain and blood. And there were grapes. Matthew Packer's witness testimony (in the paper) is arguably the best we have yet at describing the killer. The drawing then published in The Telegraph from his description is also the best image we have yet of the suspect. The killer was no crazy-eyed jew.

The first 2 lines in this post are first presumptive, then on to purely speculative. There is not one shred of evidence this was an "interrupted" event, which then in turn leaves us with a single throat cut. That's not anything like what the Ripper did. Mathew Packer had multiple stories, and there were no grapes or stems found at the site or in her hand.

[erobitha]

The first 2 lines in this post are first presumptive, then on to purely speculative. There is not one shred of evidence this was an "interrupted" event, which then in turn leaves us with a single throat cut. That's not anything like what the Ripper did. Mathew Packer had multiple stories, and there were no grapes or stems found at the site or in her hand.

If we are being anal, Elizabeth Stride was an official ripper victim, that is a matter of official fact across the board. She is one of the canonical five, so technically to say she isn't, makes you the presumptive one.

Have you seen the yard in question or even a re-enactment of the crime scene? I suggest the BBC show "Jack The Ripper: Case Re-opened" actually does a very good job of describing the murder scene. It was a narrow and very dark alleyway with light only at the street-end of the alley. It is most likely Jack dragged her down and slit her throat a little of the way in and as he was doing so the pony hooves on the cobbles most likely alerted him someone was coming so he moved deep into the shadows to avoid detection. Louis Diemschutz saw his pony was startled by something and investigated further, only to see woman's body on the ground, which appeared to be dead. In a panic he ran to the nearby club to alert them, which gave Jack just enough time to slip away from the shadows and into the night. This is widely regarded by many to be the chain of events, anything else is presumptive. Grape stems were in her hand and was widely reported as being so. The fact the inquest aknowledged the stains and skins, and had an unusual fascination with trying to prove nothing was in her hand, asks more questions than it answers.

[Michael W Richards]

If we are being anal, Elizabeth Stride was an official ripper victim, that is a matter of official fact across the board. She is one of the canonical five, so technically to say she isn't, makes you the presumptive one.

Have you seen the yard in question or even a re-enactment of the crime scene? I suggest the BBC show "Jack The Ripper: Case Re-opened" actually does a very good job of describing the murder scene. It was a narrow and very dark alleyway with light only at the street-end of the alley. It is most likely Jack dragged her down and slit her throat a little of the way in and as he was doing so the pony hooves on the cobbles most likely alerted him someone was coming so he moved deep into the shadows to avoid detection. Louis Diemschutz saw his pony was startled by something and investigated further, only to see woman's body on the ground, which appeared to be dead. In a panic he ran to the nearby club to alert them, which gave Jack just enough time to slip away from the shadows and into the night. This is widely regarded by many to be the chain of events, anything else is presumptive. Grape stems were in her hand and was widely reported as being so. The fact the inquest aknowledged the stains and skins, and had an unusual fascination with trying to prove nothing was in her hand, asks more questions than it answers.

I really hate being the one to remind people of the information found right here on this site, and easily accessible in any Ripper book, but since you pushed a button;

1. Official victim means that she is on a list presumed by many to be on Jack the Rippers killing list. Note the bold, that's the fact.
2. The Canonical List is that same presumed list, there is no proof at all any victim within it was connected by the killer.
3. There was light coming from the upstairs windows, and in the cottages on the left side of the passageway people were awake, presumably not sitting in the dark.
4. You don't need to describe what every member here, apparently excluding you, have known for decades.
5. Diemshutz was the steward of the club, he didn't "run to a nearby club" at all, he was pulling into it.
6. He says he went in to see if his wife was ok, she was in the kitchen, with the open door.
7. Witnesses who said they saw grape stalks were Im sure quite disappointed when none showed up anywhere on that site.


You seem to have a few opinions that have no foundation in the known evidence, and belief in "facts" that are not facts at all. I have been debating issues about this murder here for over 10 years here, and have been studying the crimes since 1888. When we are even ground, I should start seeing some "facts" in your posts.

[erobitha]

1. Official victim means that she is on a list presumed by many to be Jack the Rippers killing list. Note the bold, that's the fact.

So you are more qualified than the police of the day and subsequent profesisonals in this area to disconnect the links? Very bold of you. Regardless of what "websites" say, the official police line is these victims are killed by the same killer, and until that view is overturned it does remain a matter of police fact at least.

2. The Canonical List is that same presumed list, there is no proof at all any victim within it was connected by the killer.

Apart from the police who seem to be under that misconceoption. But thankfully you're not.

3. There was light coming from the upstairs windows, and in the cottages on the left side of the passageway people were awake, presumably not sitting in the dark.

You must think the victorians had some very impressive lighting in their homes. Parafin lamps and candles must have really lit the narrow alleyway up like a funfair.

4. You don't need to describe what every member here, apparently excluding you, have known for decades.

Sorry to be out of the enlightened loop that clearly apparently every member on here is aside from me

5. Diemshutz was the steward of the club, he didn't "run to a nearby club" at all, he was pulling into it.

The wall of the club seperated the club from the alleyway. So was it nearby? Or was the yard actually part of the club? Most likely the yard is where you put your pony and cart, much like a car park where you would park your car. But what do I know?

6. He says he went in to see if his wife was ok, she was in the kitchen, with the open door.

Which was not accesible or visible from the yard. As I said there was a wall in the way. "On entering the gateway, a brick wall runs for some distance on the right-hand side, and it was on the footpath here, and by the side of the brick wall, that the victim was found."

7. Witnesses who said they saw grape stalk were Im sure quite disappointed when none showed up anywhere on that site.

Amazing how those pesky witnesses can cloud the story. A fruit seller calims he sold grapes and was happy to be a witness but failed to be interviewed by the police until his witness statement was published in the paper. Witnesses at the scene descibe one hand clutching a grape stem and one clutching sweets. Somehow though the stems never made the inquest but the fruit stains and skins did. Magic grapes must be much like magic beans. The stuff of fairytale, unless they come in fruit stain and skin form.

You seem to have a few opinions that have no foundation in the known evidence, and belief in "facts" that are not facts at all. I have been debating issues about this murder here for over 10 years here, and have been studying the crimes since 1888. When we are even ground, I should start seeing some "facts" in your posts.

I am honoured such a veteran of esteemed ripperorlogy would even dain to dismiss my frivolous "non-facts".

[Sam Flynn]

He says he went in to see if his wife was ok, she was in the kitchen, with the open door.

Which was not accesible or visible from the yard. As I said there was a wall in the way. "On entering the gateway, a brick wall runs for some distance on the right-hand side, and it was on the footpath here, and by the side of the brick wall, that the victim was found."

The entrance to the kitchen was accessible from the yard.

[Fiver]

I have been debating issues about this murder here for over 10 years here, and have been studying the crimes since 1888.

Studying the crimes since 1888? Just how old are you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Studying the crimes since 1888? Just how old are you?

I didn’t start until 1894

[Fiver]

3. There was light coming from the upstairs windows, and in the cottages on the left side of the passageway people were awake, presumably not sitting in the dark.

William West, Morris Eagle, Lewis Diemshutz, Constable Lamb, and Surgeon Blackwell all testified that Dutfield's yard was dark, very dark, or rather dark. Anyone sitting in a lighted area will have their eyes adjust to that level of light, so they won't see as well into the darkness as someone in that darkness whose eyes have adjusted to the lack of light.

[jmenges]

This thread has been reported.
So, I ask you all to kindly settle down a bit.

Thanks

JM

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I don't mean to come down on one side or another, but, unless I missed something, the actual identity of the Whitechapel killer was never proved?
Stride may well have been a victim. Or not. Or maybe one of the other C5 was killed in totally unrelated but hugely coincidental circumstances?
Maybe he started out dumping torso pieces around London?
Maybe he invented the telephone, maybe he genuinely was into Oasis before they were popular?
We don't know who was responsible for one, if any, of these crimes. Can anyone be so confident to say, for a fact, what happened? We can debate probabilities, likely hoods, human nature and logic, but that's far removed from stating facts.
And who, regardless of years studying the case, knows every detail of every possible permutation of every facet of the many, many theories?
Is not surely taking part in these forum's the fact that one might change their mind? If you are so concrete in a belief, why debate it with others who are not blindly persuaded?

[c.d.]

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

Hello Jon,

Well it was kind of a piss poor attack when you come right down to it at least as it was described by Schwartz. We also don't know who instigated the "attack" and what the intentions of the B.S. man were. Did he intend to cause her significant bodily harm or maybe just give her a shove for mouthing off to him?

I know that I am a lone wolf crying in the wilderness on this point but I absolutely hate the word attack. It is such a heavily loaded word and one not used by Schwartz.

c.d.