A Whip and a Prod

[c.d.]

This Interruption Model needs to have some meat to begin with to rank it as a possible theory cd, as it is, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the killer of Liz Stride had any further intentions after the single throat cut, nor is there that the killer was "interrupted" in the process.

Michael, you post this over and over which makes me wonder if you even read posts in opposition to your theories and if you simply dismiss them without giving them any consideration.

As I have said so many times before there might not be any hard physical evidence of an interruption. I doubt very much whether Jack was going to leave a note saying I intended to mutilate the victim but I got scared off. What if he thought he heard somebody coming out of the club and that scared him? How would we have evidence for that? And I know you absolutely hate any references to modern day serial killers but what of Sutcliffe saying there were several time when he failed to follow through with a murder simply because of his own paranoia? How would there be any evidence of that? Yet, it happened.

You are always so quick to chastise other posters for how they view the case. Perhaps deviating from your own either black or white perspective and considering a little grey might be beneficial.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, you post this over and over which makes me wonder if you even read posts in opposition to your theories and if you simply dismiss them without giving them any consideration.

As I have said so many times before there might not be any hard physical evidence of an interruption. I doubt very much whether Jack was going to leave a note saying I intended to mutilate the victim but I got scared off. What if he thought he heard somebody coming out of the club and that scared him? How would we have evidence for that? And I know you absolutely hate any references to modern day serial killers but what of Sutcliffe saying there were several time when he failed to follow through with a murder simply because of his own paranoia? How would there be any evidence of that? Yet, it happened.

You are always so quick to chastise other posters for how they view the case. Perhaps deviating from your own either black or white perspective and considering a little grey might be beneficial.

c.d.

In this instance cd the only thing that would open my mind to an interruption is some kind of proof there was one. As it is all the evidence says her killer killed her in likely a 2 second interval and left her to bleed out. What time he did that exactly is my concern, because if it can be proven that Louis actually did arrive at 12:40-12:45, using the 4 witnesses who stated that they were by the body and Louis at that time.., then there would be a possibility the killer was interrupted,..because it coincides with the estimated earliest cut time.

Remember, he didn't move the body in any way, so if he was interrupted just as he kills her, then its a possible scenario. Still wouldnt mean it was Jack, but at least youd be off to the races to argue that.

As many believe Louis arrived when he said he did, which is contrary to 5 witnesses statements...including Fanny, then ist not probable the cut was just made...therefore, why didn't he even touch her after cutting her as many as 14 minutes earlier?

[c.d.]

If I had to guess (and that is all it is) I think that Jack's desire to kill overcame his good judgment and at some point (maybe even before he killed Stride) he realized that this was not a safe place and chose to get out of there as quickly as possible after killing her. Stride was not the only woman in Whitechapel and I think he was mentally competent enough to realize that if he were to be caught he would be hanged. That would certainly make me a bit jumpy.

Can the interruption theory be proved? No. But it is certainly plausible and again it could have taken place without hard evidence of it.

c.d.

[DustyBones]

If I had to guess (and that is all it is) I think that Jack's desire to kill overcame his good judgment and at some point (maybe even before he killed Stride) he realized that this was not a safe place and chose to get out of there as quickly as possible after killing her.

c.d.

I agree with this. Killers like Jack are absolutely compelled to act out their respective fantasies. They lack foresight of future consequences; immediate or long term. Jack would have survived moment to moment; dealing with his victim one moment the next moment escaping undetected. Someone like Jack(when in his mode) is more than likely incapable of thinking more than one or 2 steps ahead.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You have:

1. Calculated that the only way Diemschutz could be sitting in his barrow is center-upright when he reached to prod Stride’s body without any possibility that he could have… oh, I dunno… leaned over in his seat
2. Diemschutz fabricating an imaginary pony & barrow merely for his deceitful amusement when it would have been 10-fold easier to simply claim that he walked to the club, tripped over something in the passageway, lit a match and saw a woman. Why the need to elaborate on a lie with an aspect [pony & barrow] that could have been verified by asking one of the constables present in the yard {ie. Coroner to PC Lamb: By the way, about this pony & barrow that Diemschutz mentioned…]?
3. Fanny Mortimer married to Patek Phillipe and whose very nature is seemingly designed around her accuracy for time. This when we have examples at the inquest of people being uncertain about time in general – PC Lamb says that he was alerted around 1am, but later says he arrived 10 to 12 minutes prior to Dr. Blackwell (who says that he arrived promptly at 1:16a). So, which is it – is he at Dutfield Yard around 1a or is PC Lamb on site at 1:04, 1:06… or maybe even 1:08,…
4. “trodden” meaning something other than “stepped in” - even after the Coroner asks, “was there any blood on the soles of the deceased” in light of the word “trodden” being spoken by Dr. Blackwell and “soles” being in reference to her boots.

Leaning was mentioned in the original thread.
It doesn't add much to the overall reach.
Have you used your leaning estimate to recalculate?

The issue with the prodding is complicated by the fact that we don't know the dimensions of the whip used (or even if he had one).
There is also dispute about the position of the body in relation to cart, in the passageway length dimension.
We need to know:

• height of deck (it's about 65cm)
• distance of right arm to body, across the lane
• same again, but along the lane

The sound of the pony and barrow becomes the excuse for finding the body, without becoming a suspect.
The Ripper hears it coming, and takes off, just in time.
That story is both easy to believe and sell.
Compare that to walking into the lane, and discovering the body.
Everyone would want to know were the Ripper had gone, or wonder if the discoverer was also the culprit.
That would be 10 times harder to explain - not easier.

The times are a big issue.
Worthy of a new thread. Stay tuned...

Re the blood, I think we are talking past each other.
Consider this, which might be a case of seeing a face in a cloud...

PC Lamb finds her legs, very close to the gate:

The feet of the deceased extended just to the swing of the gate, so that the barrier could be closed without disturbing the body.

Eagle, not so much:

I could then see a woman lying on the ground, near the gateway, and in a pool [?] of blood. Her feet were about six or seven feet from the gate ...

That either means, 6 or 7ft from the gate, or 1 or 2 ft from the gate (6 or 7 minus 5ft).
That's not the same thing as having her boot ends, tucking in behind the open gate.
Was she moved a few feet closer to the gate, for some reason?

If we suppose yes, the blood flow would have been unequal along the gutter.
Now consider:

Phillips: I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck.

A bit of water from a bucket, would have quickly evened things up.

Phillips: Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

Now, with water added to the gutter, what area of blood would have congealed first?

Phillips: The blood near to the neck and a few inches to the left side was well clotted, and it had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance to the club-house.

What Phillips is getting at, may have nothing to do with spots or treads.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Can the interruption theory be proved? No. But it is certainly plausible and again it could have taken place without hard evidence of it.

So the interruption 'theory' is unfalsifiable.

Similar to the 'theory' of the smears of blood on the right hand being mistaken for grapes, it can never be proved wrong, because it's just an interpretation of someone's thinking or subjective experience.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why the need to elaborate on a lie with an aspect [pony & barrow] that could have been verified by asking one of the constables present in the yard {ie. Coroner to PC Lamb: By the way, about this pony & barrow that Diemschutz mentioned…]?

A the inquest:

• Diemschutz appeared day 1
• PC Lamb appeared day 2
• PC Smith appeared day 4, as did DI Reid

The police weren't there to be asked.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For the sake of argument, if the murder had occurred in the back yard of #40 Berner St, we would have to wonder what Philip Krantz heard or saw:

I work in a room forming part of the printing office at the back of the International Working Men's Club. Last Saturday night I was in my room from nine o'clock until one of the members of the club came and told me that there was a woman lying in the yard.
[Coroner] Had you heard any sound up to that time? - No.
[Coroner] Any cry? - No. Or scream? - No.
[Coroner] Or anything unusual? - No.
[Coroner] Was your window or door open? - No.
[Coroner] Supposing a woman had screamed, would you have heard it? - They were singing in the club, so I might not have heard.

So he heard nothing suspicious. Then what?...

When I heard the alarm I went out and saw the deceased, but did not observe any stranger there.

Where is the 'there', he went out to - down at the gates, where the body is?

[Coroner] Did you look to see if anybody was about - anybody who might have committed the murder? - I did look.

Where did he start looking, after witnessing the deceased?

... I went out to the gates, and found that some members of the club had gone for the police.

So where had Krantz witnessed the deceased?

[c.d.]

So the interruption 'theory' is unfalsifiable.

Similar to the 'theory' of the smears of blood on the right hand being mistaken for grapes, it can never be proved wrong, because it's just an interpretation of someone's thinking or subjective experience.

Hello N.B.F.N.,

Do you think it is possible that Jack could have been scared off before he had a chance to mutilate Stride? If so, how would you go about proving that?

c.d.

[Robert St Devil]

I have been off the boards for a year or so, and hadn’t realized (until last night) that this thread is a retread of another similar thread that you had started – something-something-obstruction of justice or passage – and that most of my observations have been laid out by other members. I don’t see any more that I can add other than a novel concept here-or-there

Leaning was mentioned in the original thread.
It doesn't add much to the overall reach.

Yes; I saw how dismissive you were of the act of leaning when you wrote in Post #1 {{{flashback}}}…

Now we know that Diemschutz claimed that his pony shied to the left, and we also know he would be capable of leaning a little to his right. Let's assume these two factors cancel,...

…“assumptively dismissive” to the point that you didn’t bother including leaning-over as a margin of error in your Pythagorean outtake on why Louis Diemschutz is|was lying unequivocally. The issues that I take with your calculations is:

1. that they construct a static model of a robotic-type Louis D. with none of the abstract tendencies of the human body; and,...
2. that they rely on several blinding assumptions that are all coordinated into a cheating effort to skirt around an existing probability that, “Yes Virginia, there is a way that Diemschutz could have prodded at her body with a whip from his barrow!” (and, believe me, I have damned the infuriation several times over the years when a probability that exists in-bounds has been pointed out to me!)

Have you used your leaning estimate to recalculate?

I did you one better, Sin Culpa Por Nada. In the spirit of methodology, I attempted my own simple experiment. True, my bed is not a barrow and a ruler is not a whip handle; still, I give myself a measure of credit for the reenactment. And, sitting atop my bed and leaning over its’ side, I came to two realizations:

1. I mentioned that your calculations are static and don’t account for natural tendencies of the human body. Partially what-I-mean is, they only design an outstretched arm, not one that is prodding around in different directions and different intervals to feel for what this “lump” on the ground could be
2. More importantly, I don’t think that your calculations accounted for the vertical span of Elizabeth Stride’s body while it was lying|laying* on the ground. It would seem that you have removed Elizabeth Stride entirely from the equation, and that you are trying to calculate if Loius D. can touch the ground – which may not have even been necessary.

The issue with the prodding is complicated by the fact that we don't know the dimensions of the whip used (or even if he had one).
There is also dispute about the position of the body in relation to cart, in the passageway length dimension.
We need to know:

• height of deck (it's about 65cm)
• distance of right arm to body, across the lane
• same again, but along the lane

Granted we don’t.

A the inquest:

• Diemschutz appeared day 1
• PC Lamb appeared day 2
• PC Smith appeared day 4, as did DI Reid

The police weren't there to be asked.

It was an inquest. The Coroner could have asked the constables whatever question he wanted. Coroner Baxter was satisfied with Louis Diemschutz response to his question when he himself asked about the fate of the pony.

The times are a big issue.
Worthy of a new thread. Stay tuned...

For better or worse, I’m upcoming on my 5^th year of membership here on The Board, no plans on going anywhere

* I can never remember when to use which term

[Robert St Devil]

Re the blood, I think we are talking past each other.
Consider this, which might be a case of seeing a face in a cloud...
PC Lamb finds her legs, very close to the gate:
Eagle, not so much:
That either means, 6 or 7ft from the gate, or 1 or 2 ft from the gate (6 or 7 minus 5ft).
That's not the same thing as having her boot ends, tucking in behind the open gate.
Was she moved a few feet closer to the gate, for some reason?
If we suppose yes, the blood flow would have been unequal along the gutter.
Now consider:
A bit of water from a bucket, would have quickly evened things up.
Now, with water added to the gutter, what area of blood would have congealed first?
What Phillips is getting at, may have nothing to do with spots or treads.

I set this portion of your response aside from my previous comment so that I may have a separate venue to say:

What on God’s green earth are you even talking about, man ?!

I was talking about the trodden marks of blood found around her body and how they related to the soles of Elizabeth Stride’s boots. I need a better connection of how that observation led into -> 1) contrasting observations about her distance from the gate and 2) unsubstantiated aspects of the crime scene [a bucket of water]. Regarding the 2^nd point, you are walking a zig-zag line between speculation and cheating. You don’t believe Louis Diemschutz had a whip, barrow or pony; however, now we are supposed to accept that there is an unmentioned bucket of water somewhere in the yard.
As far as the trodden marks of blood and the Coroner’s curiosity about the soles of her boots, I would speculate that he was trying to determine if she had been the one to step in her own blood. Why? Because if there had been blood on the soles of her boots, then that would mean that she had been standing when her throat was cut. And, obviously that was a point of concern considering the opinion of the doctors was asked during the course of the inquest.
As far as the body being moved, it would more than likely had to have happened before her throat had been cut since the doctors did not observe any blood on her clothes.
{* That is not say that I am opposed to the idea that her body was positioned during the course of the murder. Why I say that comes back to a question that you might be willing to participate on: was it happenstance or occurrence that her neck was directly over that rut|gutter? Now, maybe I’m not using that terms correctly in this context but what I’m getting at is, did the murderer purposely place her neck over that rut around the time that he cut it, or did Elizabeth Stride just happen to die near enough to that position & the rut inadvertently added an aspect to the crime scene? The petty reason why this interests me (and my memory may be entirely dim on this matter) is I think a similar aspect was evident at the scene of Polly Nicholls’ murder (could be wrong tho!) with her blood trailing off into a gutter.}

[Robert St Devil]

It’s Saturday, dealing with a bout of vertigo & boredom, nothing more to do than stay home and “casebook”

Morning Advertiser (London)
Thurdsdy, October 4^th 1888
Coroner: Were there any spots of blood anywhere else?
Dr. Phillips: I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted, if I may use the term, from the original flow of the neck. Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

I wanted to add this bit about NB4N’s interest surrounding the Doctor’s response since it may add a dimensional aspect to the crime scene.

My take is, that Coroner Baxter is asking the Doctor if there were marks of blood to be found at places around the crime scene other than in the aforementioned rut. Coming off the Chapman crime scene where a spray of blood was found on the adjacent fence, the Coroner wants to know if there were similar marks at the Stride crime scene (or, in general, if there were marks about the scene that may indicate a struggle, whether she was standing when she was cut, prints that may have been caused by her murderer, &c.) When the Doctor uses the term “transplanted”, it’s an unnecessary & obtuse way of merely stating: I only observed the blood which had flown|leaked|dripped|poured|transplanted from the cut in her neck down into the rut and did not see marks of blood anywhere-else along the crime scene. From direct observation, he knows that the original flow of [blood from] the neck is into the rut. In other words, he could have easily have responded with: Nope! What Dr Phillips does not consider regarding the unusual flow of blood is the crime scene itself. From stated reports, we know that the blood moved from her body towards the club’s side-door further up the yard. We also know that the blood pooled near the door. What these observations indicate is that the passageway was sloped downwards from the gate towards the club’s side-door {maybe this was a reason a drain was needed }. How much was it sloped? Well, first let’s consider the positioning of Elizabeth Stride. We know that her feet were towards the gate and her head was towards the side-door. This means, with her dead body lying|laying* on a slope, her feet are effectively above her head. So, based on the properties of gravity, blood is moving in the direction from her feet towards [and out of] the cut in her neck. {I feel that it’s safe to say that: if the ground wasn’t sloped and had been completely flat, then the blood would have 1) ran in both directions along the rut, 2) pooled up nearer to her neck, 3) been less of an outflow since gravity would be pulling equilaterally}. So, how sloped was the ground? I can’t accurately calculate that factor but I know that it was enough that the stream of blood traveled the remaining distance from her body to the door and that it pooled up there. {Trying to remember if the side-door was 18 feet or yards from the gate as well as how much blood was observed} Either way, to me, it suggests more than just a mild grade slope. So when the Doctor says there was an unusual flow of blood, I believe that he is saying that she has bled out “quite a bit” of blood (or that she has bled out more than he would have estimated considering that her carotid was not entirely severed) without taking into account the manner in which her body is “resting” on the downward slope [feet & body above her neck] and the effect of gravity pulling blood towards & out of the cut in her neck.

[Robert St Devil]

...What Dr Phillips does not consider regarding the unusual flow of blood is the crime scene itself. From stated reports, we know that the blood moved from her body towards the club’s side-door further up the yard. We also know that the blood pooled near the door. What these observations indicate is that the passageway was sloped downwards from the gate towards the club’s side-door {maybe this was a reason a drain was needed }. How much was it sloped? Well, first let’s consider the positioning of Elizabeth Stride. We know that her feet were towards the gate and her head was towards the side-door. This means, with her dead body lying|laying* on a slope, her feet are effectively above her head. So, based on the properties of gravity, blood is moving in the direction from her feet towards [and out of] the cut in her neck. {I feel that it’s safe to say that: if the ground wasn’t sloped and had been completely flat, then the blood would have 1) ran in both directions along the rut, 2) pooled up nearer to her neck, 3) been less of an outflow since gravity would be pulling equilaterally}. So, how sloped was the ground? I can’t accurately calculate that factor but I know that it was enough that the stream of blood traveled the remaining distance from her body to the door and that it pooled up there. {Trying to remember if the side-door was 18 feet or yards from the gate as well as how much blood was observed} Either way, to me, it suggests more than just a mild grade slope. So when the Doctor says there was an unusual flow of blood, I believe that he is saying that she has bled out “quite a bit” of blood (or that she has bled out more than he would have estimated considering that her carotid was not entirely severed) without taking into account the manner in which her body is “resting” on the downward slope [feet & body above her neck] and the effect of gravity pulling blood towards & out of the cut in her neck.

I hate the act of quoting myself but I felt the question being begged after I posted. Would it have been possible for enough blood to have traveled the distance from her body to the door and pooled up-there if, in fact, Louis Diemschutz had just interrupted the murderer during the act? Keeping in mind that by the time he parks his barrow, lights a match and returns with the candle (a minute or two), there is already a pool of blood by the door which Mrs Diemschutz attests to in the Morning Advertiser October 2nd 1888. And, considering that Elizabeth Stride's carotid wasn't entirely cut through. Determining that possibility could be an indication if she had been murdered prior to the 1am theory.

[DJA]

I hate the act of quoting myself but I felt the question being begged after I posted. Would it have been possible for enough blood to have traveled the distance from her body to the door and pooled up-there if, in fact, Louis Diemschutz had just interrupted the murderer during the act? Keeping in mind that by the time he parks his barrow, lights a match and returns with the candle (a minute or two), there is already a pool of blood by the door which Mrs Diemschutz attests to in the Morning Advertiser October 2nd 1888. And, considering that Elizabeth Stride's carotid wasn't entirely cut through. Determining that possibility could be an indication if she had been murdered prior to the 1am theory.

If Stride had lost 2 quarts of blood ,including any clot,she would have still been alive and her heart pumping > 140 bpm with BP < 70.

Irrelevant as she had been asphyxiated.Phillips' autopsy proved that.

Strongly suspect Jack had been waiting for BS Man to vacate the scene.Even if the baker's clock was 5 minutes fast ,Jack had enough time to do his work and depart.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello N.B.F.N.,

Do you think it is possible that Jack could have been scared off before he had a chance to mutilate Stride? If so, how would you go about proving that?

c.d.

That is not the right way to go about it.
Firstly, we need a thorough and robust model of how the murder was executed.
I think speculating on the cause of the murderer fleeing the scene, is starting midstream, so to speak.
Consider this little anomaly:

Diemschutz: It seemed to me that her clothes were in perfect order. I could see that her throat was fearfully cut. She had dark clothes on, and wore a black crape bonnet.

Where is the bonnet?

Johnston: The bonnet of the deceased was lying three or four inches beyond the head on the ground.

Now where is the bonnet?

One could argue that Diemschutz really meant 'and had worn a black crape bonnet', but that wouldn't make much sense given the context of the sentence.
Why would he change from making specific references to what he had observed of the victim, and then say something that ambiguous?

Apparently the bonnet was removed, after the murder!

There are several other anomalies, that can't be easily explained away.
If people start by wondering why the murderer took off, these little issues are going to be missed.