Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Absence Of Evidence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Astatine211 View Post
    Heck it could've even been Morris Eagle who caused the disturbance rather than Diemschutz.

    ​​​​Also just pondering could one interpretation of the Goulston Street Graffito be a reference to the interruption of Stride. The working men's club was known to be predominantly Jewish and maybe Jack assumed it was a Jewish person had disturbed him, hence his anger towards them in the graffito.
    I always felt there was a connection alright. Prior to Stride's murder there was a palpable sense after Chapman that it must have been a Jew due to the whole leather apron debacle. I think Jack was worried with all the attention on the Jews that perhaps he would not get the credit for Stride.Especially as she was murdered right next door to the Jewish working mans club. I have always seen the GSG as his claim on Stride. I also believe the text was deliberately mis-transcribed. I believe the City of London's version of the graffiti is closer to the true wording. "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing". To me this reads as actual context "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for anything".

    Stride was Jack's.
    Last edited by erobitha; 04-21-2021, 08:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Astatine211
    replied
    Heck it could've even been Morris Eagle who caused the disturbance rather than Diemschutz.

    ​​​​Also just pondering could one interpretation of the Goulston Street Graffito be a reference to the interruption of Stride. The working men's club was known to be predominantly Jewish and maybe Jack assumed it was a Jewish person had disturbed him, hence his anger towards them in the graffito.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    C.d. has put it well Erobitha. It’s certainly amazing that someone can actually argue that the lack of evidence for interruption somehow proves that there was no intention to mutilate. Not on any planet that I’ve inhabited.
    But if you reverse engineer from Eddowes to Stride you would definitely say based on the cutting of the throat in the exact same place, it was the same murderer. Especially with only an hour difference. I do not see anyone debating that Eddowes was not a JtR victim. Ergo....

    C.D's explanation is a good one. It clearly explains that just because there is no evidence of any previous signatures that the intent to do so was absent. If they were interrupted the opportunity simply passed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
    I'm genuinely intrigued to know what evidence of interruption we would expect to see???

    What would that look like??

    MWR?
    Michael has quoted things like “raised skirts” “legs parted.” Obviously though these wouldn’t have been evident if the killer had been disturbed before he’d got to that point. For some reason Michael doesn’t accept this. For him it’s a case of - we see no evidence of interruption therefore we should assume that there was no intention to mutilate therefore...no ripper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    I come at this from another angle, because I don't necessarily agree that if the ripper killed Stride, he must have done so with the intention of going on to mutilate her and remove body parts, and therefore something or someone must have interrupted him before he could do more than inflict a single cut, which proved fatal.

    We don't know what Stride and her killer were doing, from when they were first alone together, to the moment he slit her throat. We don't really know how long they were alone together, or whether they talked, or argued, or fought, or even canoodled. Whoever the killer was, ripper or not, he'd have been wise to assess the location and the likelihood of being seen with Stride, if he meant her serious harm. And it doesn't come much more serious than taking a knife to the woman's throat. It was not the ideal place for committing a capital crime, let alone for fannying about afterwards, raiding the corpse. So I humbly submit that if the killer's original intention had been to make Stride his next mutilation victim, he could have been stymied in two ways, by realising they were in a lousy place for the purpose, and by failing to induce her to go off with him to a less risky one. If she suspected his motives, and he decided to kill her there and then and get safely away, he needn't have been interrupted at all, but alternatively it could have been the sound of the pony and cart that made up his mind for him, and led him to cut swiftly and make a run for it. Then we wouldn't need the coincidental timing of Louis D approaching just as, or just after her throat was cut - which is one of Michael Richards's main objections.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    I agree Caz. It’s easy to make assumptions but we have consider the situation or how the killer perceived the situation to have been at the time. Maybe he just wasn’t comfortable in that spot? Maybe Liz started to get a bit vocal if the killer tried to get her further to the back of the yard so he decided to just silence her and move on? Maybe the killer did occasionally have sex with prostitutes without killing them but on this occasion an argument broke out and he lost his temper? I think that it’s easy to mistakenly close off lines of thought because we assume that we know what the killer was thinking at any given time.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    True. It might not even have been Diemschutz that initially caused him to stop? A noise from somewhere nearby perhaps? Maybe someone opened the side door and went to the outside toilet a minute or two before Diemschutz returned? That person would have been facing away from the Club and so might not have seen the killer. He might not have come forward and admitted that he’d been in the yard because he didn’t want to be implicated.
    It could have started right from the beginning if he realized (and why wouldn't he?) that this simply was not a safe place and there were too many people around. So why kill under those circumstances? Who knows? It could be that he was simply overcome with the desire to do so and danger be damned. Then paranoia kicked in after the kill.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    I'm genuinely intrigued to know what evidence of interruption we would expect to see???

    What would that look like??

    MWR?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Keep in mind that an interruption needn't have been physical, simple paranoia and thinking this is not a safe place to be could also do it as well.

    c.d.
    True. It might not even have been Diemschutz that initially caused him to stop? A noise from somewhere nearby perhaps? Maybe someone opened the side door and went to the outside toilet a minute or two before Diemschutz returned? That person would have been facing away from the Club and so might not have seen the killer. He might not have come forward and admitted that he’d been in the yard because he didn’t want to be implicated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
    I'm with the majority on this.

    I really can't see what evidence of an interruption one would expect to see.....??

    I'm with Caz, in that I am not sure that Stride was a victim of JTR.

    On balance, I slightly lean towards the idea that she was, but I am by no means certain.

    I keep changing my mind on this!

    But really, based purely on the topic of this poll, we MAY have seen evidence of interruption, but the fact that we don't doesn't mean that there wasn't one.

    Again, what would that interruption look like?


    Exactly Ms D. We might have seen some but we couldn’t have expected to have seen it. I never have thought I’d have felt the need to start a Poll on something this obvious but I almost got to the “am I missing something here?” point when I found myself arguing against someone claiming that we should dismiss Stride as a ripper murder because there was no evidence of his intention to mutilate.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Keep in mind that an interruption needn't have been physical, simple paranoia and thinking this is not a safe place to be could also do it as well.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    I'm with the majority on this.

    I really can't see what evidence of an interruption one would expect to see.....??

    I'm with Caz, in that I am not sure that Stride was a victim of JTR.

    On balance, I slightly lean towards the idea that she was, but I am by no means certain.

    I keep changing my mind on this!

    But really, based purely on the topic of this poll, we MAY have seen evidence of interruption, but the fact that we don't doesn't mean that there wasn't one.

    Again, what would that interruption look like?



    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Hi Mike.
    This appears to be a misapplication of the phrase.

    The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" cannot be applied to intent which often leaves no trace. The phrase was intended for a physical action that has left no trace for various reason's.

    We could apply it to the question of Stride being robbed, if we knew she had money on her.
    It would also be applicable to the suggestion of strangulation/suffocation. There are clues she may have been, as suggested by the doctor, but no actual evidence that she was.
    As has been correctly pointed out, if the interruption occurred before the mutilation began, then we will have no evidence of the intent to mutilate.
    The phrase cannot be applied to an action that had yet to happen.



    Hi Wick,

    Im kicking myself because I intended to change the title as I realise that it doesn’t describe the position accurately but as you know, after a while, the ‘edit’ option disappears. I was able to explain my point of course but perhaps I should have titled it simply “The Absence Of Evidence?”

    I’ve pm’ed Jon Menges to ask if he change the title for me.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-21-2021, 05:26 PM. Reason: Added a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    I come at this from another angle, because I don't necessarily agree that if the ripper killed Stride, he must have done so with the intention of going on to mutilate her and remove body parts, and therefore something or someone must have interrupted him before he could do more than inflict a single cut, which proved fatal.

    We don't know what Stride and her killer were doing, from when they were first alone together, to the moment he slit her throat. We don't really know how long they were alone together, or whether they talked, or argued, or fought, or even canoodled. Whoever the killer was, ripper or not, he'd have been wise to assess the location and the likelihood of being seen with Stride, if he meant her serious harm. And it doesn't come much more serious than taking a knife to the woman's throat. It was not the ideal place for committing a capital crime, let alone for fannying about afterwards, raiding the corpse. So I humbly submit that if the killer's original intention had been to make Stride his next mutilation victim, he could have been stymied in two ways, by realising they were in a lousy place for the purpose, and by failing to induce her to go off with him to a less risky one. If she suspected his motives, and he decided to kill her there and then and get safely away, he needn't have been interrupted at all, but alternatively it could have been the sound of the pony and cart that made up his mind for him, and led him to cut swiftly and make a run for it. Then we wouldn't need the coincidental timing of Louis D approaching just as, or just after her throat was cut - which is one of Michael Richards's main objections.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    This relates to the ongoing debate concerning the murder of Elizabeth Stride.
    .....Evidence of interruption might have existed of course if the killer had been interrupted after he’d lifted her skirts for example but that not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is that the killer might have been interrupted just as or just after he’d cut her throat and that consequentially we cannot expect evidence of interruption to have existed.
    Hi Mike.
    This appears to be a misapplication of the phrase.

    The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" cannot be applied to intent which often leaves no trace. The phrase was intended for a physical action that has left no trace for various reason's.

    We could apply it to the question of Stride being robbed, if we knew she had money on her.
    It would also be applicable to the suggestion of strangulation/suffocation. There are clues she may have been, as suggested by the doctor, but no actual evidence that she was.
    As has been correctly pointed out, if the interruption occurred before the mutilation began, then we will have no evidence of the intent to mutilate.
    The phrase cannot be applied to an action that had yet to happen.




    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    I can’t believe we are still having this debate to be honest. The cut across the left carotid, replicated less than an hour later on Eddowes alone is enough to link the two murders. That clinical incision in a street murder did not happen everyday - let alone an hour apart.

    If anything the evidence of the interruption was taken out in the frustration murder of Eddowes.

    It so improbable that the two murders were not connected. I can totally agree with the frustration of why we still debate it.
    C.d. has put it well Erobitha. It’s certainly amazing that someone can actually argue that the lack of evidence for interruption somehow proves that there was no intention to mutilate. Not on any planet that I’ve inhabited.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X