Three cases of interruption?

[perrymason]

No issue with logical thinking, as long as its made clear that is what it is and that it is not passed as fact in a bid to support an arguement. It misleads and leaves one open, as you have experienced often.

That sounds fair Monty....lets put that to the test shall we?

Is it logical to assume that Liz Stride is killed by someone other than the man seen assaulting her by a witness not more than 10 minutes from her fatal cut and feet from her murder location...with no other people seen near that site... as per Fanny Mortimer?

Not really.

Is it logical to assume that Liz Strides killer was the man that later kills Kate,..by the resulting injuries on the murdered women alone?

No...not really.

Is it logical to suggest that the killer of Liz Stride was interrupted, without any witness or corroborating evidence.. physical or circumstantial?

No.

Is it then logical to allow arguments that suggest any of the above factors as evidence that Liz Strides killer was in fact Jack the Ripper?

Nope.

I know I make sweeping statements, but I have considered the alternatives first...ones in evidence, not alternatives that remain within the bounds of possibility despite not leaving any evidence to support them.

All the best Monty.

[Monty]

Tom

No, not really. I guess some things are just too darn hard to understand. Ask Simon, he seems to have grasped it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

To US [you, me and the others], asserted as a fact by various posters.

How could we ever know if Stride's murderer was a stranger to her?

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Monty,

When you're in a better mood, please elucidate me as to the point you're trying to make. What I saw Simon say was that Stride was neither killed by Kidney or Jack the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Michael

Again, no issue with that. As long as you are clear in stating it as logical thinking opposed to fact.

[Simon Wood]

[QUOTE= Why was it important for the public to buy into the double-event and the world-wide scare which followed? c.d.[/QUOTE]

We wouldn't be here today if the press and public hadn't bought into it hook, line and sinker. Disbelieve the double-event plus the subsequent correspondence and the whole JtR myth crumbles into dust.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,

Liz Stride most likely was killed by an unknown stranger, for there is absolutely no hard evidence to support the notion that her killer was [a] Michael Kidney or [b] the mythical JtR who 45 minutes later struck again in Mitre Square.

But there is evidence to support the notion that it was important for the public to buy into the double-event and the world-wide scare which followed.

In the first instance I would refer you to Swanson's garbled version of events on 30th September; also Scotland Yard's butt-saving reaction to Matthew Packer's story appearing in the press.

Regards,





Simon

But its the very style of the murder that suggests the Ripper.
There was no sign of resistance,she was found dead in the darkest corner of the yard ,within minutes of people leaving and coming into the yard and her wound bore certain similarities,according to Dr Phillips, to the throat wounds of the previous victims.
In its rapid execution ,in between people who were passing to and fro past the crime scene,it resembles the murder of Polly Nichols,where two police were on duty at either end,one who passed the spot every 15 minutes.
This sort of risk taking in a murder,accompanied by silence,rather than a shouting match between lovers ,where the fatal wound to the throat was swift and clean , takes place very rarely and when it does,the perpetrator is usually caught.

[Fisherman]

Simon asks

"How could we ever know if Stride's murderer was a stranger to her?"

Indeed, Simon. Itīs just that people around here sometimes seem to "know" things that reasonably canīt be known.
We are only free to speculate - and I myself do so along the lines that Stride DID know her assailant - but this is not the thread for that discussion!

All the best, Simon!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Let's try this test:

Did anyone see the BS man kill Liz?

No

Do we have a motive for the BS man that we are sure of?

No

Is it an absolutely unique event that a prostitute gets hasseled by a client possibly a drunk one?

Nope

Is it strange that Liz only gave out three small cries rather than screaming bloody murder and appealing to Schwartz and the Pipe Man for help?

Yep

Is it strange that the BS man would go on and kill Liz after being seen by Schwartz and the BS man and especially after Schwartz ran off possibly to fetch the nearest policeman?

You betcha

Is it difficult to explain how the bag of cachous could remain in Liz's hand without tearing after being thrown to the ground and presumably being dragged by the BS man?

I'll say

c.d.

[perrymason]

We wouldn't be here today if the press and public hadn't bought into it hook, line and sinker. Disbelieve the double-event plus the subsequent correspondence and the whole JtR myth crumbles into dust.

Regards,

Simon

I think thats a great point Simon,....it would seem that Jack the Ripper is actually born... from letters and acts that became public...just after that Double Event Weekend....or for the less ripperesque pose...the Weekend of the Post Office Robbery.

He was in mid morph from Whitechapel Murderer maybe guilty of 4 stabbing and robbery attacks that year, to Leather Apron..the guy who is known to use knives in his work and has shaken whores down for money before, and might be capable of crude field surgery with his sharp weapons....through September...but hardly anyone calls him either after that weekend.

Cheers Simon...nice to have you in on this topic.

[Fisherman]

C.d!

The only point I really canīt agree with is the penultimate one. If the man who killed her really had a beef with her, and if he moreover - which is suggested in the Star - was a bit tipsy, then it would not be strange at all if he went through with his intentions to kill her. Itīs not as if all the killings in this world go down unspotted and in privacy, is it?
The last point, the one on the cachous, is strange to some extent. But if she was cut while falling, maybe she clenched her fists as it happened.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Is it strange that Liz only gave out three small cries rather than screaming bloody murder and appealing to Schwartz and the Pipe Man for help?

You mean the same way Cadosche reported the soft 'no' in the back of 29 Hanbury street? It's not odd if these women were robbed and assumed they wouldn't be hurt if they complied.

Is it strange that the BS man would go on and kill Liz after being seen by Schwartz and the BS man and especially after Schwartz ran off possibly to fetch the nearest policeman?

Not particularly, if he knew he could dispatch her quickly and not likely be identified.

Is it difficult to explain how the bag of cachous could remain in Liz's hand without tearing after being thrown to the ground and presumably being dragged by the BS man?

Not really. She didn't have it in her hand when she was knocked down. Again, if robbed, she would empty her pockets. The killer would take the canolie and leave the gun...er...take the money and leave the cachous. I attribute this same approach to explaining why Chapman's belongings were at her feet and Eddowes' thimble rested by her hand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

You make a good point but I just think it strange that of all the options available to the BS man, i.e., cussing her out, hitting her, or cutting her somewhere else he chooses to cut her throat. Clearly he wanted her dead.

c.d.

[perrymason]

cd,

Again are we talking based on evidence or within the vast realm of all things possible...

Let's try this test:

Did anyone see the BS man kill Liz? No

Easily agreed upon

Do we have a motive for the BS man that we are sure of? No.

Are you asking why he did this...or whether he did this?

Is it an absolutely unique event that a prostitute gets hasseled by a client possibly a drunk one?Nope

Not at all...some even end with stabbings and robbery as a matter of record.

Is it strange that Liz only gave out three small cries rather than screaming bloody murder and appealing to Schwartz and the Pipe Man for help? Yep

Why is she screaming at all...says who....she may have may a sound when she hit the ground but there is no indication that she believed at that second to be under attack...nor does the description of the event sound like an attack.

Is it strange that the BS man would go on and kill Liz after being seen by Schwartz and the BS man and especially after Schwartz ran off possibly to fetch the nearest policeman? You betcha

How can you possibly know what BSM thought Pipeman and Schwartz were going to do? He yells...they left....one its said in one account...incontinently. Sounds to me like the witness evidence says he was scared and left quickly. Is it so odd that the other man present might do the same? this assailant did have Broadshoulders as his single most indentifiable physical characteristic....seems like he scared them off with a yell to me.

Is it difficult to explain how the bag of cachous could remain in Liz's hand without tearing after being thrown to the ground and presumably being dragged by the BS man? I'll say

First off Schwartz doesnt even put the cashous in her hand when the altercation takes place..and secondly BSM helps her up....so we are not talking about him dragging anyone anywhere.

c.d.

I hope you see what Im getting at with the above, you make questions using assumptions that are without evidenciary foundation....so what kind of value do you think answers to those might have in terms of real crime solving?

Best regards

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I ask questions because I see red flags. You don't appear to see them so therefore you have no reason to question "the evidence."

c.d.