Three cases of interruption?

There is also Schwartz and "Pipeman", Mike.

Both are stated to be gone by 12:46 approximately Ben. I know some feel Pipeman may have returned, but if so, there were no witnesses to that.

It sounds to me like BSM scared the witnesses off by being belligerent, and now had the woman who may have refused his proposal or offer in front of others.. causing a scene, to himself.... right outside an empty yard. Within 10 minutes or so, Liz is lying mortally wounded inside that yard.

Its not a huge leap of faith thats required here Ben.

Cheers mate

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

It seems like when you don't want Jack to be her killer he has no time at all in which to commit the murder, yet when you want Jack to be her killer but not mutilate her he has all the time in the world. It can't be both ways.

As for possible interruptions we are not limited by any means to Diemschutz. If somebody came out of the club to take a leak (a reasonable possibility) where would we have evidence for that? Maybe Jack heard a door slam. Again, would there be evidence for that?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d asks:

"What would constitute evidence of an interruption?"

and

"Why do we have to limit ourselves to Diemschutz being the only possible source of interruption?"

Sorry for butting in, C.d, but I think these questions ought to be answered beginning from the end: There is no need for those who believe in an interruption to think that Diemschutz must have been the only possible source for it. It could have been one out of a thousand things that happened.

So far, I suspect you like the answer?

Moving on, though, we come to the problem: There is no way anybody is going to be able to prove that there WAS an interruption. And if there was, it came to early to allow us to speak of the Ripper as the probable killer of Stride.
If he had had the time to cut to the bone, it would have helped - but not clinched it, as there was another woman cut that night, and SHE was cut all the way down to the bone.
If he had had the time to lift her skirts, it would have helped - but not clinched it, since there are a few men out there that take an active interest in what´s hidden under women´s skirts.
If he had had the time to place her on her back, it would have helped - but not clinched it, since we would not be sure that she had not turned over herself, and any old robber would have wanted access to her pockets.
If he had opened up her belly ... but then we would not be talking about an interruption, would we?

She remains a complete no-go when it comes to evidence, C.d, and nothing is going to change that I feel. What we have is all circumstancial, and circumstances involving women with a record of prostitution, hanging around in dark East end streets in the middle of the night have a tendency to attract all sorts of trouble.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Diemshutz is the ONLY possible interruptor on record

There is also Schwartz and "Pipeman", Mike.

Hi Michael,

Why do we have to limit ourselves to Diemschutz being the only possible source of interruption?

c.d.

Because when Schwartz leaves, he can have as much as 15 minutes alone in that yard with Liz...without known disturbances. Diemshutz is the ONLY possible interruptor on record....unless you want to consider Goldsteins 12:55am pass as his interruption...which would make Goldstein someone who gave false a false witness statement...he says he looked up at the club window where the singing was coming from and saw nothing near the gates....and we might wonder how come Fanny doesnt see someone dart out before Diemshutz pulls in...since she is by her door off and on until at least Goldsteins sighting....and she saw no-one else.

Goldsteins pass is about at the short end limit of the estimated cut time also...as suggested by Blackwell...so she is cut before Diemshutz arrives and could easily have been cut just after Schwartz left and still be within the estimate.

Liz could well have been lying there though, behind the gate.

So why does he wait until almost 12:56 to start...when Schwartz is gone by 12:46....to start on a victim he has access to in a witnessed stated empty yard as of 12:40am, and with intentions on opening her abdomen after the throat cut?

The logical answer is he wouldnt...he would use the empty yard.

Best regards.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Why do we have to limit ourselves to Diemschutz being the only possible source of interruption?

c.d.

Hi Michael,

What would constitute evidence of an interruption?

c.d.

Hi cd,

In my opinion her being placed on her back would be one possible sign....her clothes being lifted to her waist would be another, some evidence that she was moved slightly after she fell to a more convenient position for the killer...a man seen darting out of the yard as Diemshutz pulled in....some evidence that some further act was pending....

If it was Jack cd, he killed her without intending to do anything else, and perhaps as he hears the cart and pony approach his location. He may have slashed her while twisting her scarf and she was falling backwards, which means he was further in the yard and it leaves the body between him and instant egress.

There is no evidence her killer was interrupted. So if you can add just a simple, single artery severing murder easily to Jack the Rippers known persona to that point, then its your choice. I personally cant.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

What would constitute evidence of an interruption?

c.d.

Stride was killed by a stranger, with no struggle, in a dark yard, within the same hour as a bonafide Ripper victim. How so many people can so easily accept this as a one-off is beyond me. Especially when murders such as Stride's were exceptionally rare outside of the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Its not as difficult to do as you make out Tom.

Jack the Ripper attributed prior kills were done in "single event nights" only, Liz Stride has no evidence on her that her killer sought or even considered postmortem mutilating, her throat is cut differently than Pollys, Annie and Kates, and Liz Stride is involved in a witnessed assault with a drunk man who manhandles her causing her to fall,...mere yards and minutes from her murder. The fact she pulls away from him as he attempted to pull her into the street suggests he intended on taking her across the street to an alley perhaps for some "business" transaction...and the fact she falls as she is resisting that gesture implies she may not have been seeking clients at that time, she may even be rejecting one...or perhaps just in that location.

Exactly how many more traditional Ripper facets have to be absent from the evidence to make that point more clear?

The Cart and Pony show was 15 minutes away when that attack happened, (Liz's throat cut happens sometime during those 15 minutes), and they could be heard coming from a good distance away as this was night and less street noise was happening, and they were on cobblestones.

How did an interruption occur when there is no evidence at all any act was incomplete or that another act had only partially begun? Why does he cut her throat when he hears the cart and pony coming, if he is the guy who intends on mutilating postmortem? How come he maybe cuts her "while falling" this time?

Its a mess as a Ripper crime....there is no evidence that it was, and evidence that does exist that says it wasnt.

Liz Stride is I believe the second woman of three that night that is inflicted with a throat cut by a knife. The 3rd victim almost lost her head completely...just like Canonicals 1 and 2.

You remove Liz Stride and you have three almost identical murders, with escalated violence present.. in sequence,... based on the known signatures/methods/sequences/actions of the man nicknamed the Ripper, all within a 5 week period. That may be the actual "series" everyone thinks ran longer, included dissimilar murders, and started earlier.

Cheers Tom.

[Fisherman]

C.d writes:

"Stride was a known prostitute whereas the other woman you mention was not."

...and Tom Wescott adds:

"That morning she was cleaning for money, so she was in money-making mode"

Ehrm, Tom - that would have been about the worst case somebody ever made for Stride prostituting herself on the actual night. Good fun, though - thanks!

C.d - the fact of the matter reamins that we don´t know that she WAS prostituting herself. As you well know, much points away from it.
Nothing, though, points away from my original point - that women DID get their necks cut in London by other men than the Ripper. We cannot declare some sort of amnesty for all other men than the Ripper just because we are studying a slaying that happens to take place on the same night as a Ripper killing, can we? Even if the neck had been cut to the bone there would have been no reason to be sure that it was the Rippers work - for if you look at the cut woman number three, her neck WAS cut to that extent! That simply would not have been enough to cry "Jack", but people actually do so for less than that for some reason.
I say such things are going to take some sort of evidence that there was an intent to eviscerate Stride - and there is nothing of the sort about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Uncle Jack writes:

"we have to take into account is the fact that medical examiners 1888 were far different from what they are today and it is (reasonable) to accept that Killean was wrong about the one wound that he suggested was made by another weapon, and that it was due to the fleshy area of the stab making it appear different to the other wounds."

Killeen would not have been wrong. To begin with, the wound he used for his assertion was the one that went through the sternum, and that is no fleshy area - it is bone, giving an exact picture of the size and shape of the blade that penetrated it.
Some say that he may have wiggled the blade, trying to retract it, thus creating a bigger hole. But Kileen performed the autopsy, meaning that he saw the heart that was pierced underneath the sternum. And if there had been some major wriggling involved, then Killeen would have been able to read that clearly in the shape of the hole through the heart.

So no, 1888 or not, there can be no doubt - two weapons were involved.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

to the novice like myself it does seem a massive coincidence that the 2 murders should occur in the same area ..at around the same time..

Three murders actually, Andy, although 'tother was some 3½ miles west of Mitre Square, and the culprit (John Brown, who cut his wife's throat) handed himself in that same night.

what are the chances of that?

As to the 2 murders in Whitechapel/City, the odds are roughly in the order of tens of thousands to one. Which sounds scary, until you consider that UK National Lottery winners face those sort of odds on a bi-weekly basis (odds of matching 5 numbers = 55,000:1), and someone always wins - in fact, several people often do.

[Uncle Jack]

Works all the way up to the point where he suddenly swopped weapons - in the middle of a frenzy...?

I think it is a fair point Fish but what we have to take into account is the fact that medical examiners 1888 were far different from what they are today and it is (reasonable) to accept that Killean was wrong about the one wound that he suggested was made by another weapon, and that it was due to the fleshy area of the stab making it appear different to the other wounds. I am not an expert on these things but it was better explained in Patsy Cornwell's book. OK, not the best of authors to prove a point but to give her credit, she knows her stuff in this department, despite her faults at Ripper research!

Take care Fish,

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Valid enough point about Cadosche I suppose; though his little added touch to the murder could've backfired. But I don't think Long could've elaborated any further on her character any more than she did without making it unbelievable like Hutchinson, having told whoever that she saw him from behind; I think the man she alledged to have seen is very detailed considering.

[Tom_Wescott]

Albert Cadosche had to go to the press and tell the world about his morning bowel movements and lost work and money by appearing at the inquest (which he complained quite a bit about), so I doubt he'd agree his testimony was 'convenient'. Had he been fabricating it, he would have included more detail. As for Long, I agree that we must take her description with some salt, but she was asked for her impression of the man and she gave it. She was honest that she didn't get a good look at him. Again, had she been making the ordeal up, she would have given more detail.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott