Different Killers

[Wickerman]

Maybe he pretended to be more drunkenly incapacitated than he was.

Like Ted Bundy with his crutch.

Ed Kemper and his glasses.

I bet a drunk is a prime target for theft by a prostitute. Gave them the impression and confidence they could take advantage of him and not the other way around.

If his aim is to offer himself as a potential victim by acting drunk, why on earth does he begin by assaulting her?
Funny strategy.

[Errata]

You have an autopsy report where they are unsure. Later on though you have a definite answer to this from the same person who wrote that report.

[Coroner] What is your idea as to the position the body was in when the crime was committed? - I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck.

There you have it. There is no reason to change his view to one of mystery when it never has been and never will be.

The problem is that hands almost never cause pressure marks. If you grip hard enough to mark the skin you are gripping hard enough to bruise. Pressure marks come from prolonged constant pressure. For example the outline your watch leaves on your wrist when you take it off at night. Or to put it in a more applicable form, the marks bra straps make. Pressure marks on the shoulders means that her bodice was being tugged down. A heavy dress can do it, but she wasn't wearing a dress. But it's not from hands.

[Batman]

So this is yet just another coincidence?

[Batman]

If his aim is to offer himself as a potential victim by acting drunk, why on earth does he begin by assaulting her?
Funny strategy.

Whatever works, works. I don't think he is going to put on a show for long if he doesn't think he has too.

Schwartz said BS man spoke to her first though. Maybe he decided to just get her in the gate quickly or she became suspicious very quickly.

Imagine a whole club running after you down a street to Stride's shouting Ripper!

[Batman]

The problem is that hands almost never cause pressure marks. If you grip hard enough to mark the skin you are gripping hard enough to bruise. Pressure marks come from prolonged constant pressure. For example the outline your watch leaves on your wrist when you take it off at night. Or to put it in a more applicable form, the marks bra straps make. Pressure marks on the shoulders means that her bodice was being tugged down. A heavy dress can do it, but she wasn't wearing a dress. But it's not from hands.

Bruising results from vascular disruption. Even a pinch can do that. Females bruise more easily because of higher fat deposits in skin making it looser for possible bruising.

Room 1 - Pathologist aren't certain frontal bruising was done recently.
Room 2 - Witness describing frontal assault.

Conclusion - Witness is just coincidentally describing an assault that could cause it but we should really accept the bruising was older and unrelated?

I'm sorry but I no longer accept the coincidence explanations in the Whitechapel murders because the sheer bulk of coincidences used by some researchers is staggering when there is no need for it by accepting simple explanations that are more parsimonous.

I think room 2 gives good reason for those in Room 1 to accept it looks more likely the bruising was recent. It seems this is why Philip's described the murderer grabbing her shoulders (not her scarf) to get her onto the ground. I think its more likely he pulled on it while she down.

By the way he didn't go far into the gate as her feet where only 3 feet away from it.

[lynn cates]

bingo

Hello Jon.

"No mention of the Coroner agreeing with the story given by Schwartz."

Bingo!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

new line of work

Hello (again) Jon.

"If his aim is to offer himself as a potential victim by acting drunk, why on earth does he begin by assaulting her?"

I say, you should quit your job and play bingo. You could make a bloody fortune! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

A simple question

Why lie if he has every reason to be there??

Schwartz is on his way home.

His reason for being on Berner Street is that he MUST be there as that street is part of his way home.

If the time he arrives in Berner Street is also the time that Stride was being attacked then there is absolutely no reason why he wouldn't have seen it unless he was blind or it never happened... Which is ridiculous because she is dead and her body lying a few feet from the gate.

Nobody saw her standing by the club side door despite people being there.

In order to present Schwartz as a liar one still has to give him the right to be there at the time and place because he must if he is going home. Nobody can take that from him.

In any modern investigation someone leaving somewhere and going somewhere else would create a timing which if intersecting with a murder in terms of time and place would make them a person of interest. They would be sought after for questioning, period.

[Jon Guy]

Bruising results from vascular disruption. Even a pinch can do that. Females bruise more easily because of higher fat deposits in skin making it looser for possible bruising.

Room 1 - Pathologist aren't certain frontal bruising was done recently.
Room 2 - Witness describing frontal assault.

Conclusion - Witness is just coincidentally describing an assault that could cause it but we should really accept the bruising was older and unrelated?

I'm sorry but I no longer accept the coincidence explanations in the Whitechapel murders because the sheer bulk of coincidences used by some researchers is staggering when there is no need for it by accepting simple explanations that are more parsimonous.

I think room 2 gives good reason for those in Room 1 to accept it looks more likely the bruising was recent. It seems this is why Philip's described the murderer grabbing her shoulders (not her scarf) to get her onto the ground. I think its more likely he pulled on it while she down.

By the way he didn't go far into the gate as her feet where only 3 feet away from it.

Correct again, Batman.
Alice McKenzie had similar bruising or marks caused by fingers, and in that instance the doctor did think they were caused by someone forcing McKenzie down or holding her down whilst her throat was being cut.

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

I have been interested a long time in Lave. I think he emigrated to America just after this time.

I agree about the venue. I have often wondered--irrespective of killer--why Liz were at Dutfield's yard. No good answer emerges.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I was just wondering if there is any evidence that Dutfield's Yard was used regularly, if at all, by prostitutes, although I know the club denied this.
And is there any evidence Hanbury Street was regularly used by prostitutes, if at all? If not, that at least strengthens the argument that both venues were selected by the killer, although in Liz's case she may, of course, not have been soliciting but meeting someone she new.

My concerns are that whatever your beliefs are regarding whether the Chapman and Stride murders are linked, it does seem that both locations were probably chosen by their killer.

And, for me, that presents a serious problem. I mean, I respect Trevor's viewpoint, but I simply can't accept that Handbury Street was fundamentally less risky than Dutfield's Yard.

Thus, the Stride murder site had the benefit of the Yard being cloaked in darkness and the fact that the neighbourhood didn't seem too busy, at least if you accept Lave and Mortimer's evidence.

But balanced against that, the killer risked getting himself boxed-in if interrupted, e.g. by Diemshitz. And then, of course, there was the presence of the club. Well, perhaps not the presence of the club per se, but why that particular night and time? I mean, there must have been occasions when the club was much quieter, or even empty, so why decided to commit murder on a night when over 100 people were going to be in attendance? This logic also applies, of course, to a club member or someone associated with the club, i.e. Lave. And, as I noted earlier, such a person carried the additional risk that, on such a busy night, their absence might be noted, particularly as regards the time they left and returned to the club.

Turning to Hanbury Street, this seems a totally crazy time and place to stage a murder, let alone spending further time committing mutilations. Thus, consider likely time of death. John Richardson confirmed that all was well when he left the property around 4:50. At around 5:15 Albert Cadosch heard a voice, possibly a women, saying "no" and a few minutes later, when he returned to the yard, he heard a fall against the fence. Finally, Mrs Long who, of course, was convinced she saw Annie with a man at 5:30, fixing the time by the brewers' clock.

It therefore seems that Annie was killed sometime between 5:15 and 5:30, although obviously additional time would have been required to mutilate the victim. Her body was, of course, discovered at around 5:45.

Now considering time and place. The morning of the murder, the sun rose at 5:23, so it seems possible, if not likely that she was killed in broad daylight. But why would the killer wait until this unsuitable time to commit a murder, when it would presumably have been much darker, say, half an hour or an hour earlier? Another difficulty is that the neighbourhood was beginning to stir and people were getting ready to leave for work, greatly increasing the risk of interruption.

As far as place is concerned, as noted we have a neighbourhood that is beginning to stir but, also, in Hanbury Street a location where, once again, the killer risked getting boxed-in. In such circumstances his options would be limited; force his way past the person blocking his escape route, enter 29 Hanbury Street and start running through the house, or hurdle fences!

Even if the venue was chosen by Annie, her killer must have been on the prowl at that time in the morning looking for a victim, i.e. just before sunrise and just before the neighbourhood was starting to stir.

So there you have it. 2 Venues that may well have been selected by the killer but, regarding both time and place, both manifestly unsuitable, suggesting that whilst both Liz and Annie's killer or killers showed some organizational skills regarding the time and place selected for the crimes they were a bit stupid!

I find it all a bit of a conundrum.

[lynn cates]

Hanbury

Hello John. Thanks.

No evidence whatsoever for Berner and prostitution.

Hanbury? Although mama denied it, John replied, Yes. Moreover, many locals slept in the passageway from time to time. Indeed, a "foreign sounding" man had been ejected within the last month. Need I mention Mrs. Long saw a "foreign-looking" man with Annie? Age? Near 40.

Oh, yes, and they were talking loudly out front. A sane killer would not do that?

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

No evidence whatsoever for Berner and prostitution.

Hanbury? Although mama denied it, John replied, Yes. Moreover, many locals slept in the passageway from time to time. Indeed, a "foreign sounding" man had been ejected within the last month. Need I mention Mrs. Long saw a "foreign-looking" man with Annie? Age? Near 40.

Oh, yes, and they were talking loudly out front. A sane killer would not do that?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for reply. Yes, it does seem that Berner Street is a problematically venue, particularly if you believe that JtR targeted prostitutes and the victims selected the location. Of course, the sites may have been chosen by the killer but, Berner Street aside, it does seem that most of the other murder sites were known, or suspected, to be frequented by prostitutes. Of course, in respect of Annie, that still doesn't explain why her killer decided to strike just as it was getting lighter and people were getting ready to leave for work.

I'm not really sure whether Annie's killer was insane or just somewhat disorganized. Ted Bundy, of course, went from organized to disorganized. And I seem to remember that even during his organized phase he went up to one one victim, in front of witnesses, and said something like "my name's Ted, fancy a lift?" So, not only did he abduct someone in front of witnesses, he used his real name and his own car, the VW! I believe that the police put out a request for information on anyone called Ted, who drives a similar car. I believe his name was then given by his girlfriend, and other friends, but for some reason the police didn't act on the information.

[lynn cates]

accidents

Hello John. Thanks.

From my point of view, there was NEVER a decision. I think Polly and Annie were accidental.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello John. Thanks.

From my point of view, there was NEVER a decision. I think Polly and Annie were accidental.

Cheers.
LC

Polly and Annie were accidental? What does that mean?

[GregBaron]

Out of Mind.......Out of Sight...

Allow me put words in Lynn's mouth Captain Abby.....hopefully he won't be too angry...

I believe Lynn thinks poor Ischenschmid murdered Polly and Annie in a schizophrenic delusional state thinking they were pigs or sheep or horses or cows, animals he was used to butchering....

How in this out-of-mind state he had the wherewithal to escape unseen and leaving little evidence is the more difficult part of the theory...

Feel free to punish me Lynn...

Abby, what's your response?



Greg