From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

He had an idea who "boyfriend" was?

Perhaps an idealist of some kind? (ring any bells?)

all the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

How?

Hello Dave.

"Kidney caught up with her and tried to force her into whoring"

Alright. But ask yourself this, How did he catch up with her? Try placing them in natural circumstances and see how such a meeting would come out.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

So is there something wrong with the thought that Kidney had been (whenever he could) running Stride as a whore...but she was rebelling...

She'd met someone else...she recovered her most precious possessions and placed them "in care" ... she went on what was almost a date ... she bought cachous to sweeten her breath... her date bought her a corsage ... they behaved publicly and outrageously as lovers (pub reports) ... her lover left her short-term at Dutfields Yard, Berners Street ... Kidney caught up with her and tried to force her into whoring..."not tonight" etc, etc, killing her when she resisted...

I'm sorry (and all due respects to Tom) but is this so unreasonable?

Just asking

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Folks,

In response to your comments on my last post Abby,

"Perhaps. In the scenario where Stride has her throat cut in the street, it may have been done by the ripper in an act of anger after spending considerable time and effort to finagle her into an alley and he finally realizes she wont go. In the other scenarios its simply that something scared him off after he cut her throat and before he starts the mutilations."

So we either have a premise that the killer of Polly and Annie might just kill out of anger rather than to meet his "internal" objectives, or we have an interruption that forced his hand. Neither argument takes into account the fact that this would be a third murder in a series that starts with 2 almost identical murders,.. in the way they were carried out and the objectives the killer seemed to have. We have the medical opinion that states that very case, agreed upon by both the Coroner and the examining physician. We also have the learning curve factor, which would have affected where precisely he would even start an assault.. assuming continued objectives. The yard was empty so were the stables, why would an experienced killer ignore the dark yard for the passageway so close to the street?

And since it needs repeating apparently, there is NO, NONE, Nada, Zip, Negative and Zero evidence of any interruption in the physical evidence.

Im not at all surprise that Caz agrees with your position Abby, Caz....but there is no evidence that any altercation took place either Caz, for one. No validated Pipeman, BSM, and the only thing we know about Israel Schwartz is that he claimed to have seen the men no-one else saw or heard, involved in something that no-one saw or heard. Ive heard you argue that Stride was likely prostituting herself as well Caz, perhaps you could explain a prostitutes choice of nearly on the street to conduct her business vs far back off the street, in an empty yard. Like in Hanbury.

Your serial killer data is always interesting, but still irrelevant to any discussion that doesnt include a single killer known to have committed serial murder.

"If this was the killer of Eddowes, seeking to deny one or all of the previous murders, it was a pitiful effort."

It seems to me that if the note and section were from the killer of Eddowes then he may well have sought to assign blame to other parties when he dropped the cloth in the doorway off Goulston, blaming Jews for a murder that occurred that same night on the private property of Immigrant Jews. The fact the note does not mention 2 murders, or even another murder..... coupled with a note on a wall that suggests one of those 2 murders might have been committed by the people who owned the murder site....I believe if the killer sought to distance himself from the 1st, 2nd or the third Canonical murders then he may have done a good job.

A section of only the 4th victim, a note mentioning only the 4th victim, and a discarded cloth which would of course draw attention to some writing that suggests the Jews will avoid Blame for something.....the "distance" is there already, you just chose to bypass it for speculation.

Best regards

[Bridewell]

Chris,

I'd never considered the possibility of the killer taking out one unfortunate as a distraction prior to killing another. To a sick mind it might seem entirely logical to take such a course of action.

Sorry. I've just read this after posting and realised it could be taken the wrong way. Hope you realised that was not the intention!

[ChrisGeorge]

I agree with everything Abby has said. There are many reasonable explanations - without any need to twist or ignore the evidence - for the ripper slitting Stride's throat then scarpering towards Mitre Square without hanging around to mutilate her (in what we know would have been limited time, even if he didn't).

I don't get this 'not bloody likely' attitude, when so little is known about the ripper's mentality; what he would or would not have done when things didn't go entirely his way, for instance; or what might have triggered his kill reflex, before he had time to think whether it was safe to hang around afterwards, playing with his knife.

Let's assume the ripper did walk down Berner, saw Stride standing there, and saw an opportunity. This would have been the 'pick-up' point, which was not necessarily going to double up as the mutilation location. Why would it? I don't know why this simple point gets overlooked every time we have similar discussions. If the killer's previous successes (with Chapman, Nichols and very possibly Tabram) were down to the victim's total co-operation and willingness to accompany him from a more public pick-up point to a suitably private place of execution, he would have been feeling pretty sure of himself by the night of the double event.

At some point, surely, as the body count increased, he would mistake a woman who was more on her guard and not about to be led to the slaughter, for one who - like the others - was only too willing to go off for a shilling (or a tanner). And we just don't know how badly the killer would have reacted to a rejection by an unfortunate, or even a more gentle "sorry, love, it's here or nowhere". He was unlikely to be over the moon about it, and he had a sharp knife with which to show his displeasure. If he thought so little of human life, why couldn't the ripper have slit a woman's throat, with no thought beyond revenge for spoiling his chances?

And that's just one of several possibilities. Schwartz and Pipeman would certainly not have improved the killer's mood, and for all he knew they could have been bringing the police back with them to watch the show. Something about a fiend who was going round the streets attacking women just like Stride, and stealing their innards?

Come to think of it, he'd have been twit of the year to stick around mutilating in those circumstances, wouldn't he?

Not bloody likely.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz and Abby et al.

As you know, the traditional view is that the Ripper committed the Stride murder and was interrupted. Being frustrated in his intent to mutilate the victim as he did with his other victims, he did another murder the same night a number of streets away in Mitre Square, Aldgate, to the west of Berner Street on City of London Police Territory. This though does not allow for the odd circumstances of the Stride murder, that it was committed in the yard beside a busy socialist club that was holding an event that very night when the murder took place. That fact makes a number of students of the case, in fact, exclude the Stride murder as a Ripper killing. However, it occurs to me that if the murder was committed by the same man who murdered Eddowes, always a big if of course, he might have meant the Stride murder as a diversion so that he could murder and mutilate in privacy in Mitre Square or some other dark location in City Police territory. The hypothesis would call for the killer not to intend to mutilate Stride but only to slit her throat and make his excape. This could also mean that he was very aware that Berner Street was fairly busy and the socialist club frequented by visitors, and he was in fact using the nature of the location for his own ends. He might have known, for example, that committing a murder by the club would present a problem for the police because it involved a crime right next to the headquarters of a radical organization, and would likely whip up public excitement and create a crowd control problem -- the diversion he needed to do his mutilation-murder later. Also, in crossing into City Police territory, he might have thought that could give him a measure of protection because he might have reasoned that the authorities would be expecting any murder to be on Met Territory, further into the East End, which had been the pattern so far.

Best regards

Chris

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

I cannot recall a single instance, in the UK, when two unrelated murders occurred in such close proximity in terms of both time and geography ever. It is therefore significant, if only for the astonishing rarity of such an occurrence.

Exactly, Bridewell. Yet there are documented examples of genuine double events that are extremely similar to Stride/Eddowes in terms of time, space and various other details - too similar in my view to disregard or put down to some very odd coincidences.

Mark Dixie and Ted Bundy are but two examples of the 'frustration/relocation' phenomenon.

I don't really understand how the same people who can imagine with no difficulty whatsoever two unrelated killers for Stride and Eddowes, find it impossible to imagine any circumstances in which a mutilation killer might be unable or unwilling to mutilate one of his victims.

Relating this all back to the Lusk letter, its author was only interested in boasting about the latest murder, and the kidney he had supposedly bagged in Mitre Square. No previous murder - including Stride's - was considered worthy of a mention, that's all. If this was the killer of Eddowes, seeking to deny one or all of the previous murders, it was a pitiful effort.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I agree with everything Abby has said. There are many reasonable explanations - without any need to twist or ignore the evidence - for the ripper slitting Stride's throat then scarpering towards Mitre Square without hanging around to mutilate her (in what we know would have been limited time, even if he didn't).

I don't get this 'not bloody likely' attitude, when so little is known about the ripper's mentality; what he would or would not have done when things didn't go entirely his way, for instance; or what might have triggered his kill reflex, before he had time to think whether it was safe to hang around afterwards, playing with his knife.

Let's assume the ripper did walk down Berner, saw Stride standing there, and saw an opportunity. This would have been the 'pick-up' point, which was not necessarily going to double up as the mutilation location. Why would it? I don't know why this simple point gets overlooked every time we have similar discussions. If the killer's previous successes (with Chapman, Nichols and very possibly Tabram) were down to the victim's total co-operation and willingness to accompany him from a more public pick-up point to a suitably private place of execution, he would have been feeling pretty sure of himself by the night of the double event.

At some point, surely, as the body count increased, he would mistake a woman who was more on her guard and not about to be led to the slaughter, for one who - like the others - was only too willing to go off for a shilling (or a tanner). And we just don't know how badly the killer would have reacted to a rejection by an unfortunate, or even a more gentle "sorry, love, it's here or nowhere". He was unlikely to be over the moon about it, and he had a sharp knife with which to show his displeasure. If he thought so little of human life, why couldn't the ripper have slit a woman's throat, with no thought beyond revenge for spoiling his chances?

And that's just one of several possibilities. Schwartz and Pipeman would certainly not have improved the killer's mood, and for all he knew they could have been bringing the police back with them to watch the show. Something about a fiend who was going round the streets attacking women just like Stride, and stealing their innards?

Come to think of it, he'd have been twit of the year to stick around mutilating in those circumstances, wouldn't he?

Not bloody likely.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Is it your premise Abby that the killer would simply kill someone without some kind of confidence that he would have time to mutilate the corpse?

Personally I believe that the evidence suggests that whomever killed Polly and Annie used the murder to facilitate the mutilations, it was a step in the process. Why would that person, someone who moved from the street to a backyard.. more than likely so he could complete what he couldnt with Polly....merely kill Stride in a passageway just off the street when the yard was empty, and the stables were empty?

If you can accept that Polly and Annies killer's goal was to mutilate, not just kill, then why would we see step 1 of the process only with Liz? She was on her side and left untouched after the cut....he didnt even place her on her back.

Best regards

Hi Michael

Is it your premise Abby that the killer would simply kill someone without some kind of confidence that he would have time to mutilate the corpse?

Perhaps. In the scenario where Stride has her throat cut in the street, it may have been done by the ripper in an act of anger after spending considerable time and effort to finagle her into an alley and he finally realizes she wont go.
In the other scenarios its simply that something scared him off after he cut her throat and before he starts the mutilations.

....merely kill Stride in a passageway just off the street when the yard was empty, and the stables were empty?

If you can accept that Polly and Annies killer's goal was to mutilate, not just kill, then why would we see step 1 of the process only with Liz?

**** happens.

(as in unforseen circumstances i.e.-being interupted)

[Michael W Richards]

Also, if the killer knew he needed at least/apprx 5 or so minutes to accomplish his goal of organ removal, then if he determines he wont have this time, he knows its pointless to even start the mutilations or to "get one or two cuts in".

Is it your premise Abby that the killer would simply kill someone without some kind of confidence that he would have time to mutilate the corpse?

Personally I believe that the evidence suggests that whomever killed Polly and Annie used the murder to facilitate the mutilations, it was a step in the process. Why would that person, someone who moved from the street to a backyard.. more than likely so he could complete what he couldnt with Polly....merely kill Stride in a passageway just off the street when the yard was empty, and the stables were empty?

If you can accept that Polly and Annies killer's goal was to mutilate, not just kill, then why would we see step 1 of the process only with Liz? She was on her side and left untouched after the cut....he didnt even place her on her back.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

such

Hello Colin. Thanks.

Again, I would need some idea about "such." Half mile? Mile? What?

And time?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin. Thanks.

45 minutes delay and 15 minutes walking are significant? At what time for either do they become insignificant?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I cannot recall a single instance, in the UK, when two unrelated murders occurred in such close proximity in terms of both time and geography ever. It is therefore significant, if only for the astonishing rarity of such an occurrence.

[Abby Normal]

The other consideration, of course, is that Doctors Blackwell and Phillips stated that Stride's death was not instantaneous. Unlike any of the definitely ascribed victims Stride was said to have died 'relatively slowly'. This being the case she would have been alive at one o'clock had Diemschutz disturbed her attacker. Apparently she wasn't. And Blackwell felt that she had expired at least four minutes earlier. If so, Diemschutz could not have interrupted the attack. More pertinently still, Stride's killer must have had a minute or two with the dying Stride before Diemschutz happened on the scene. So why did he not use this time to commence the abdominal mutilation?

Because he was scared off before Diemshutz arived by someone from the club.

or

Because someone was off a minute or two on there times or estimations and Diemschutz did interupt the killer

or

The killer actually cut her throat in the road and took off because of Scwartz, and hearing the noise from the club, Stride struggled toward help and expired in the yard

or

the killer pulled her in the yard, cut her throat, heard the noisy club and thought it better to high tail it than stay and mutilate.


Also, if the killer knew he needed at least/apprx 5 or so minutes to accomplish his goal of organ removal, then if he determines he wont have this time, he knows its pointless to even start the mutilations or to "get one or two cuts in".

[Garry Wroe]

The other consideration, of course, is that Doctors Blackwell and Phillips stated that Stride's death was not instantaneous. Unlike any of the definitely ascribed victims Stride was said to have died 'relatively slowly'. This being the case she would have been alive at one o'clock had Diemschutz disturbed her attacker. Apparently she wasn't. And Blackwell felt that she had expired at least four minutes earlier. If so, Diemschutz could not have interrupted the attack. More pertinently still, Stride's killer must have had a minute or two with the dying Stride before Diemschutz happened on the scene. So why did he not use this time to commence the abdominal mutilation?

[Michael W Richards]

"From 20 minutes to half an hour when I arrived". That sounds like an approximation to me. I certainly don't see how we can argue from that statement a certainty that the death occurred between those times exactly.
I'm not arguing that the killer was interrupted btw. I simply take issue with the expression of certainty that he wasn't - and of course it doesn't have to be Diemschutz. A killer who thinks he's about to be caught will break off and do a runner.

When I use the precise times its not in an effort to establish those times in stone, its to illustrate how long before he arrived he believed the knife cut the throat. He arrived at 1:16am...he said around 20 minutes and in a strange way indicated that it wasnt likely more than 30 minutes. Thats 12:46 to 12:56 as our target 10 minute window. Remember, this man is examining her within 1/2 hour of her cut, there would be plenty of indicators he could use to make a pretty educated guess.

If not Louis, then whom? No-one saw anyone in front of the gates from 12:35am on...other than Israel Schwartz and his story....Lave and Eagle are there around 12:40 and see no-one, Louis comes up the street near 1am...supposedly... and sees no-one,.......so, who makes this killer bolt? Fanny, coming to her door around 12:45 and staying until almost 1am? And seeing or hearing nothing by the way.

Louis is the witness that people use to insert the interruption theory Bridewell, and its pretty clear that the killer who killed before Liz and just after Liz could do wonders in just minutes. Yet Liz is simply cut and left untouched.... with the killer having likely 4-5 minutes alone with a dying woman.

Unless she was killed closer to 12:46 and the man simply left immediately afterward. A man who is bent on cutting into dead women? Not bloody likely I say.

Cheers BW