Three cases of interruption?

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

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.

[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

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Tom, but I canīt 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 youīd be better off doing the reading yourself - I just read the exchange between you and Eduardo on another thread. It seems youīre the one who has some catching up to do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

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

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]

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

[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! Thatīs 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 Strideīs 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. Thatīs it. You can bury the myth of an expert knife killer alongside that of Kidneyīs 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

[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

[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.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

She was three days seperated from her boyfriend, whose alibi was confirmed, as were the alibis of all her other known associates. In the event you believe Schwartz's story of passerby stopping to speak to Stride, it does not suggest they know each other.

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.

There is no evidence that exists to justify Liz Strides death as "Canonical" at all....and there is evidence that does exist to suggest it was not.

Most believe the opposite is true, and for good reason.
Hi Tom,

I don't think we have to limit ourselves to people as possible sources of interruption. It could have been something as mundane as an increase in the loudness of singing making Jack realize just how close he was to other people. Anything could have made him jumpy at that point.

That's my point. He probably chose not to mutilate her for one reason or another.

We do not know for a fact if Broadshouldered Man is unknown by Liz....so I would guess there is no firm evidence she did not know her killer Monty..

We have no 'firm evidence' that BS Man even existed, or if he did that he was her killer, so supposing he did and he was, we have to draw our conclusions from what little info we have, and that info does not indicate they were known to each other.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom wants to know:

"Are you questioning Eddowes as a Ripper victim now? I said the 'next time he went out"

Tom, what you said - exactly - was this: "Immediately following the Chapman murder, there were two sensational rumors - that the Ripper killed two women in one night and left graffiti at/near the scene of one of the crimes. The next time the Ripper went out, both of these came true."

That can only be interpreted in one way - that the Ripper killed two women and that he wrote the graffito. And that is jumping the gun somewhat, wouldn īt you say?
Itīs not that I donīt know what you tried to say. It just came out a bit too much on the self-secure side, Tom.

By the way, Tom; would you say that the good Mr Brown also "knew how to cut a throat"? And if so, how could that be - given his lack of training?

Fisherman
curious