Three cases of interruption?

[Monty]

Right...

...that doesnt answer the question. Which was kinda impossible to answer. Its just that I loath sweeping assumptions passed as simple matter of fact. It misleads.

[Ben]

That's an unusually long response to what I hoped was a very simply observation, Mike.

only you cannot presume to tell me what he was thinking about the 2 witnesses that left.

I'm not "presuming to tell you" what the killer was thinking.

All I did was counter your assertion that Diemschutz is the only possible interruptor on record. He isn't. Schwartz and Pipeman are equally viable candidates, whether they interrupted Jack or someone else.

He's with her outside an empty yard at approx 12:46

12:46 is not approximate!

12:46 is precise, and unrealistically so, since any of the witnesses could have been several minutes out in their estimation of the time. "No later than 12:47" is therefore overconfident. It could easier have been later than 12:47, given that the witnesses were not all in a position to assess the time with astonishing accuracy. The topic was brought up in Sunday's podcast, when both Ally and Chris made the astute observation that very few witnesses were in a position to gauge the time with exactitude.

I'm not commenting on the "Jack or not" argument one way or the other. I don't believe the evidence allows us to arrive at too bold an opinion either way, which is why I remain firmly on the fence. I was only responding to the suggestion that Diemschutz was the only possible interruptor, because it wasn't the case. You can still be "interrupted" or feel agitated into hurrying a murder without being a serial killer.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"What is all this noise about Mr. Brown? He has nothing to do with the Ripper crimes. He was a husband who killed his wife. Cut and dried and altogether typical. And no, he had no clue how to use a knife. From what I understand, he merely cut and sawed and her neck."

He cut her neck to the bone, Tom. And with no previous practice at all! That´s why he is interesting, since the guy who cut Stride did not manage to go half that stretch.

Besides, how do you think Phillips reached his conclusion on Stride´s killer knowing where to cut? Could it be the fact that he almost succeeded to sever her left artery?
Or was there something more, something sinister, something that told Phillips that we were not looking at the everyday slasher who puts his knife to a womans throat and cuts - we were actually looking at that extremely rare somebody who mastered the fine, ancient art of ...what, Tom???

He cut. She died. That´s it. You can bury the myth of an expert knife killer alongside that of Kidney´s alibi having been tested and confirmed. Last time over you tried that one you could provide no specific proof of it, and I suspect much the same would apply now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Monty,

Misleading how?

Fisherman,

You're clearly ignorant on such murders, so I'd advise you to read some books. This has been discussed to death and you've clearly learned nothing, probably due to your haste to post. So grab some books and enjoy some quiet alone time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob Clack]

...can anyone cite the evidence Stride was killed by a stranger?

Dont hold your breath as there isn't any.

Rob

[Tom_Wescott]

Okay, then if not Michael Kidney, what non-stranger do you suggest killed Stride and why?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Tom, but I can´t grant you that - I suspect you would use the time leading as many posters as you could astray, speaking about Kidneys confirmed alibi, the expert knife wielder in Dutfields Yard and how the rumour of the Ripper writing graffito on a wall actually came true on the night of the so called double event.
No, I think you´d be better off doing the reading yourself - I just read the exchange between you and Eduardo on another thread. It seems you´re the one who has some catching up to do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Unless you know the name of the person who killed Elizabeth Stride it is impossible for anyone to say whether they were a stranger to her or not. We do not know the names of all her friends, associates or clients.

Rob

[perrymason]

I dont believe Monty or Rob is asserting that Liz's killer knew her Tom....just that to declare one thing over another without any proof irks Monty at least. As I did when suggesting that based on evidence that is known certain things can logically be concluded that don't add up to Jack as Liz's killer....or when you suggest that one Ripper attributed victim that same night 10 minutes away means its likely Jack was in Berner Street too...

Correct me if Im wrong Monty..because I assumed you were choosing a nice way of chastising me and others.

I can take it if so, as you know....and remain firm in my belief that evidence can support conjecture but conjecture is useless and a waste of time when evidence doesnt suggest and therefore doesnt support it.

Cheers Monty...my best regards as always.

[Monty]

Tom

You stated Stride and Eddowes were killed by a stranger. Not most likely but was. We both know that this is not a fact but an assumption and therefore cannot be a cast iron link between Stride and Eddowes. Its an invalid link...as well as a misleading statement.

[Tom_Wescott]

For the semantically inclined...

* Both women were killed by men not shown to have been lovers or known associates.
Is that better?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Michael

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.

[Simon Wood]

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

[Fisherman]

Simon writes:

"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."

Unknown to us, Simon - or to her?

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi All,


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

Hi Simon,

Why was it important for the public to buy into the double-event and the world-wide scare which followed?

c.d.