Three cases of interruption?

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

Not for a moment do I think you are being snotty, but if you care to assess ALL the available Berner Street/Mitre Square police evidence carefully [whilst ridding yourself of any stultifying assumption that the Metropolitan Police wore white hats] you will discover that [a] Chief Inspector Swanson was sloppy and inaccurate in his reporting, and [b] Scotland Yard's response to Matthew Packer's story in the press was nothing short of an exercise in damage control.

Matthew Packer's testimony is far preferable to that of Sergeant Stephen White.

Regards,

Simon

[Mascara & Paranoia]

@ Tom:

Because whether we agree or not about her candidacy as a Ripper victim, she is part of the Double Event; and that's just due to coincidence of being killed on the same night as an actual Ripper victim.

[Sam Flynn]

What is all this noise about Mr. Brown? He has nothing to do with the Ripper crimes.

Indeed, but then neither has Stride, except by association.

He was a husband who killed his wife. Cut and dried and altogether typical.

Stride's death was hardly atypical, if one considers Coles, say.

And no, he had no clue how to use a knife.

Not that it takes much of a clue to cut someone's throat.

But you are quite right in a sense, Tom - the Brown murder isn't relevant in the context of a potential "Triple Event"; however, it does show that it is possible for three women to have had their throats cut on the same evening, within a comparatively short distance of one another - and by different killers, irrespective of motive or circumstance.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, Stride was clearly not murdered by the Ripper. I don't know why you all bother talking about her still.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Its funny that you say Stride AND Eddowes Simon....I must confess that within me is a nagging feeling that I may be too complacent about some of the real issues there...in Mitre Square.

Ive never had issue with Mary Ann and Annie being just as surmised by Mary Anns Inquest coroner,...who suggested same killer but one that learned to kill behind the house so he could finish his attack without likely interruption. Even if Cadoche did hear the attack....and I believe he did, the killer wasnt interrupted by him... obviously.

You hint you think this Double Night itself might be a smoke and mirrors job...with what political or financial motivation by the parties that might have orchestrated it?

The Police themselves really gain nothing by a sustained Ripper frenzy I think...they get some additional budget money they then spend on manpower...no big windfall for anyone in the forces....particularly for Charlie W. And they get increased hostility from the residents.

The locals do get some Urban renewal from this...and they get rid of CW...the papers make huge money....shopkeepers and store owners see brisk business from the visitor looky loos...

Anarchists might have an opportunity to tax the police beyond their ability to function efficiently...they might have a chance to carry out acts they wouldnt normally try based on the Police regular badgering of their groups pre-Jack...

It doesnt seem that there is one clear "winner" from the events, and thats what I would look for to explain any coverup or staged activities myself.

Offer any insights on why you phrased it that way Simon?

All the best my friend.


edited to add.....if one is a clear winner in that group its the Press.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Yes, clearly. In fact, I'd rather say obviously once reading in-depth about all the canonical victims + Tabram and comparing them to one another: Stride and Tabram are almost certainly not Ripper victims.

[c.d.]

M&P,

"Clearly?" There certainly seems to be a lot of arguments made to the contrary.

c.d.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Including Stride (and Tabram) to Jack's body count doesn't make any sense at all because both were clearly the work of different people/killers (neither of which being Jack). What exactly is the reason for wanting Jack to have killed more women than he probably did when all the evidence speaks against those added murders? I just don't get the logic behind it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Chapman's clothes were ripped up, Michael, so yes her pocket was ripped. Were her belongings removed after this point? Possibly, but they may just as well have been removed while she was standing. After all, they were laying at her feet and not next to her empty pocket. As I wrote in one of my essays, I believe the position her hand was in AFTER death suggests that her ring was removed prior to death.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Simon,

I am not trying to be snotty but all we are getting from you are hints of some massive conspiracy or hidden agenda on the part of the police. If you have a point to make and have evidence to support it, please do so.

c.d.

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

But Chapman had her inner skirt pocket torn open didnt she? Anything found around her might have come free from that pocket when that happened.

Are Kates pockets specifically turned out? I dont recall that they were...but...and Liz's clothes are untouched.

Cheers Tom.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I suggested that Stride wasn't killed by Kidney; nor by the same person who killed Eddowes.

The serial-killing, knuckle-dragging, cape-wearing, top-hatted, Gladstone bag-carrying, swift-as-a-shadow, knife-a-glinting, uteri-collecting, suicidal-barristering, quack-doctoring, cotton-merchanting, literature-writing, orphan-rescuing, Lascar-seafaring, Polish-Jewing, mad Russian-doctoring, midwife-aborting, father-avenging, escaped-orangutan Jack the Ripper is a creature of our collective fevered imaginations.

Forget JtR. Come on, guys, surely we're more mature than a belief in old Victorian monsters.

Let's concentrate on who really killed Stride and Eddowes.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

I ask questions because I see red flags

Glad to hear the pink elephants are leaving you alone now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

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