Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I agree with your possibilities, and the fact that we can only speculate on the answer, but IMO the probability is the possibility that "someone that she was with went inside the club or to use the loo".

Cheers, George

Hello George,

It’s probably the one that I’d tend to favour too and the fact that no one came forward doesn’t surprise me or strike me as particularly suspicious. Perhaps the man was married or perhaps it was just a case of not wanting to be connected to someone who engaged in prostitution.

[New Waterloo]

Lets look at the evidence. Who would want to kill Stride?

1) The person we call JTR. A serial killer looking for a female to kill and butcher. There is real evidence that a person is committing these crimes in that area. We have lots of evidence regarding descriptions of this person

2) Michael Kidney, a violent drunk who has previously assaulted Stride and who is annoyed and angry about her taking things from him without permission. He knows she works for the Jews, the club is a well known Jewish club. Does he fit the description of BSM? I don't know. There seems enough to arrest and interview

I don't see any other evidence at the moment tying anyone else to Strides murder.

I know these statements are obvious but I am just trying to clear my head and just concentrate on what we are certain of

NW

[Lewis C]

Lets look at the evidence. Who would want to kill Stride?

1) The person we call JTR. A serial killer looking for a female to kill and butcher. There is real evidence that a person is committing these crimes in that area. We have lots of evidence regarding descriptions of this person

2) Michael Kidney, a violent drunk who has previously assaulted Stride and who is annoyed and angry about her taking things from him without permission. He knows she works for the Jews, the club is a well known Jewish club. Does he fit the description of BSM? I don't know. There seems enough to arrest and interview

I don't see any other evidence at the moment tying anyone else to Strides murder.

I know these statements are obvious but I am just trying to clear my head and just concentrate on what we are certain of

NW

Hi NW,

Another possibility is that Aaron Kosminski wasn't the Ripper, but did kill Stride. This might explain why Kosminski was Anderson/Swanson's suspect. Under this scenario, Israel Schwartz was their witness and he identified Kosminski, so Anderson and Swanson believed that Kosminski was the Ripper, erroneously assuming that Stride was a Ripper victim.

[Michael W Richards]

I think you would need to hear from the killer himself to determine with absolute certainty what his intent was. Failing that you are just speculating.

c.d.

I was basing my comment on part of Dr Phillips remarks at the Inquest, in particular "The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body." Some evidence can be recognized as indicative of some facet of the killer, I think in this murder case, Annie Chapmans, she was killed and cut in a manner that to a trained eye suggested "intention". Its one element of any of these crimes I look for, can we see any potential objectives or motivations within the crime scene, physical evidence, historical data. If we can say that Annie Chapmans killer was motivated by a dark desire to remove a uterus, then that establishes something about the killer that can be used to build a profile. Not that the uterus is his only interest neccesarily, just the one he exposes with Annies murder.

[Michael W Richards]

As you know, we’ve been here numerous times on this particular issue. You cannot expect to see evidence of an intention. You might see evidence of interruption but it’s not a case of there having to be evidence of something that never, in the end, occurred. If someone is prevented from doing something before he even began to carry that act out then there will often be no evidence of it because it never went further than an intention. Even if you suggest that, for example, there was no raised skirts, then that also proves nothing if the killer was interrupted before that point.

I just responded to a post of cd's on essentially the same issue, is it possible to discern intent or objective within the data from the crime scene and physical victim evidence,.... based on Phillips examination of Annie, he believed he could see the killers "objective" by the state of the physical remains. This interruption theorizing about Liz is a result of people needing an explanation for the question of "if this is in fact a Ripper killing then why isnt she ripped?" Its a great question to ask. But it cant be answered by speculation on something that has no basis in the crime scene evidence, nor the physical evidence.

Is it possible, sure. Is it indicated, no.

[Michael W Richards]

Lets look at the evidence. Who would want to kill Stride?

1) The person we call JTR. A serial killer looking for a female to kill and butcher. There is real evidence that a person is committing these crimes in that area. We have lots of evidence regarding descriptions of this person

2) Michael Kidney, a violent drunk who has previously assaulted Stride and who is annoyed and angry about her taking things from him without permission. He knows she works for the Jews, the club is a well known Jewish club. Does he fit the description of BSM? I don't know. There seems enough to arrest and interview

I don't see any other evidence at the moment tying anyone else to Strides murder.

I know these statements are obvious but I am just trying to clear my head and just concentrate on what we are certain of

NW

Just for the purpose of discussion, I think Kidney might have had information that would have helped solve this particular crime, but he only hints at it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just responded to a post of cd's on essentially the same issue, is it possible to discern intent or objective within the data from the crime scene and physical victim evidence,.... based on Phillips examination of Annie, he believed he could see the killers "objective" by the state of the physical remains. This interruption theorizing about Liz is a result of people needing an explanation for the question of "if this is in fact a Ripper killing then why isnt she ripped?" Its a great question to ask. But it cant be answered by speculation on something that has no basis in the crime scene evidence, nor the physical evidence.

Is it possible, sure. Is it indicated, no.

What Phillips believed that he could or couldn't see isn't relevant. We cannot see any kind of intent or lack of it.

There's no 'need' when looking for explanations. You try to reduce the validity of a suggestion by suggesting that it isn't made with a genuine motive. This isn't the case. We have two prostitutes murdered with a knife, close to each other and a few minutes apart so it's entirely natural and reasonable to explore the possibility that the same person killed both. That he might have been interrupted is an entirely reasonable, logical and sensible possibility based on the evidence. Ripper or not? Both are equally possible.

[Michael W Richards]

1. What Phillips believed that he could or couldn't see isn't relevant. We cannot see any kind of intent or lack of it.

2. There's no 'need' when looking for explanations. You try to reduce the validity of a suggestion by suggesting that it isn't made with a genuine motive. This isn't the case.

3. We have two prostitutes murdered with a knife, close to each other and a few minutes apart so it's entirely natural and reasonable to explore the possibility that the same person killed both.

4. That he might have been interrupted is an entirely reasonable, logical and sensible possibility based on the evidence. Ripper or not? Both are equally possible.

1. I personally would refer to and use any relevant comments made by the man who actually observed the wounds made, Im rather surprised any student believing themselves to be serious about the study would disregard them off hand.
2. Not sure what that refers to.
3. Exploring the possibility does not in fact connect these victims, its simply a filter that can be applied to see if corroborating data for that theory is present. The connection we can make at this time, just based on known data and hard evidence, is that both murders had women as the victim and they occurred on the same night in the same greater city. Entirely reasonable to just assume 1 man killed both? Its a personal call there, not one of reason. Reason suggests that if 2 women are killed in very different ways their investigations should be conducted individually until such time as any linkage between them is revealed. You dont have that "linkage", youve simply assumed it based on geography and timing. And youve assumed it despite some very prominent differences.
4. One again, if you personally want to entertain the idea that an interruption occurred, thats up to you. Im just reminding that you are entertaining an idea that has absolutely no basis in the physical evidence of that victim and that crime scene, nor in the witness evidence from that crime scene..such as ..."saw someone fleeing", or something about her physical demeanor suggested something was "incomplete". The evidence does tell us something, it suggests the killer only revealed an intention to do what was done. And in no ones vernacular would Liz Stride be considered as "ripped".

The Interruption Theory exists, for sure, you are not the first one to suggest it, its just not based on anything actually tangible. Like the C5 concept itself.

[c.d.]

I personally would refer to and use any relevant comments made by the man who actually observed the wounds made, Im rather surprised any student believing themselves to be serious about the study would disregard them off hand.

I see no reason to disregard them offhand either. But I also see no reason to treat them as the word of God either. It was his opinion. Now when I say opinion I am not disparaging it in any way. He may have been right on the money absolutely 100% correct. But there is no way he could know with absolute certainty unless he himself were the killer or he had unbelievable psychic powers.

We have been here before on this. Opinion is opinion not established fact. Take it for what you think it is worth.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Receiving a cut to the throat by knife does not denote Jack the Rippers handiwork. Look at all the other slit throats that year in case you doubt that. I believe a third woman that night also had her throat slit with a knife, and it was provably not by JtR.

[c.d.]

Receiving a cut to the throat by knife does not denote Jack the Rippers handiwork. Look at all the other slit throats that year in case you doubt that. I believe a third woman that night also had her throat slit with a knife, and it was provably not by JtR.

You are right, in and of itself it does not. But you left out Herlock's other reasons for believing Jack was Stride's killer. And you also left out Herlock's qualifying "possibility" that the same person killed both. He made no claim of certainty.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

1. What Phillips believed that he could or couldn't see isn't relevant. We cannot see any kind of intent or lack of it.

2. There's no 'need' when looking for explanations. You try to reduce the validity of a suggestion by suggesting that it isn't made with a genuine motive. This isn't the case.

3. We have two prostitutes murdered with a knife, close to each other and a few minutes apart so it's entirely natural and reasonable to explore the possibility that the same person killed both.

4. That he might have been interrupted is an entirely reasonable, logical and sensible possibility based on the evidence. Ripper or not? Both are equally possible.

1. I personally would refer to and use any relevant comments made by the man who actually observed the wounds made, rather surprised any student believing themselves to be serious about the study would disregard them off hand.
2. Not sure what that refers to.
3. Exploring the possibility does not connect these victims, its simply a filter that can be applied to see if corroborating data for that theory is present. The connection we can make at this time, just based on known data and hard evidence, is that both murders had women as the victim and they occurred on the same night in the same city. Entirely reasonable to just assume 1 man killed both? Its a personal call there, not one of reason. Reason suggests that if 2 women are killed in very different ways their investigations should be conducted individually until such time as any linkage between them is revealed. You dont have that "linkage", youve simply assumed it based on geography and timing. And youve assumed it despite some very prominent differences.
4. One again, if you personally want to entertain the idea that an interruption occurred, thats up to you. Im just reminding that you are entertaining an idea that has absolutely no basis in the physical evidence of that victim and that crime scene, nor in the witness evidence from that crime scene..such as ..."saw someone fleeing", or something about her physical demeanor suggested something was "incomplete". The evidence does suggest the killer only revealed an intention to do what was done.

The interruption Theory exists, for sure, you are not the first one to suggest it, its just not based on anything actually tangible.

[Michael W Richards]

I personally would refer to and use any relevant comments made by the man who actually observed the wounds made, Im rather surprised any student believing themselves to be serious about the study would disregard them off hand.

I see no reason to disregard them offhand either. But I also see no reason to treat them as the word of God either. It was his opinion. Now when I say opinion I am not disparaging it in any way. He may have been right on the money absolutely 100% correct. But there is no way he could know with absolute certainty unless he himself were the killer or he had unbelievable psychic powers.

We have been here before on this. Opinion is opinion not established fact. Take it for what you think it is worth.

c.d.

In this case cd we are talking about the opinion of an expert who actually inspected the deceased. And someone trained to interpret wounds. We have the benefit of neither, therefore, his "opinion" must carry some weight.

[Michael W Richards]

1. What Phillips believed that he could or couldn't see isn't relevant. We cannot see any kind of intent or lack of it.

2. There's no 'need' when looking for explanations. You try to reduce the validity of a suggestion by suggesting that it isn't made with a genuine motive. This isn't the case.

3. We have two prostitutes murdered with a knife, close to each other and a few minutes apart so it's entirely natural and reasonable to explore the possibility that the same person killed both.

4. That he might have been interrupted is an entirely reasonable, logical and sensible possibility based on the evidence. Ripper or not? Both are equally possible.

1. I personally would refer to and use any relevant comments made by the man who actually observed the wounds made, rather surprised any student believing themselves to be serious about the study would disregard them off hand.
2. Not sure what that refers to.
3. Exploring the possibility does not connect these victims, its simply a filter that can be applied to see if corroborating data for that theory is present. The connection we can make at this time, just based on known data and hard evidence, is that both murders had women as the victim and they occurred on the same night in the same city. Entirely reasonable to just assume 1 man killed both? Its a personal call there, not one of reason. Reason suggests that if 2 women are killed in very different ways their investigations should be conducted individually until such time as any linkage between them is revealed. You dont have that "linkage", youve simply assumed it based on geography and timing. And youve assumed it despite some very prominent differences.
4. One again, if you personally want to entertain the idea that an interruption occurred, thats up to you. Im just reminding that you are entertaining an idea that has absolutely no basis in the physical evidence of that victim and that crime scene, nor in the witness evidence from that crime scene..such as ..."saw someone fleeing", or something about her physical demeanor suggested something was "incomplete". The evidence does suggest the killer only revealed an intention to do what was done.

The interruption Theory exists, for sure, you are not the first one to suggest it, its just not based on anything actually tangible.

[Michael W Richards]

You are right, in and of itself it does not. But you left out Herlock's other reasons for believing Jack was Stride's killer. And you also left out Herlock's qualifying "possibility" that the same person killed both. He made no claim of certainty.

c.d.

I dont believe I did cd....the fact that another woman was also murdered that same night by knife and the fact they both happened within walking distance from one another. Those are the only 2 solid things that can be used to enable such speculation. I dont claim certainty in my belief either, that Jack the Ripper did not kill Liz Stride, but I dont see how these murders can be presumed to be, or "possibly" by the same man considering the dramatic differences in the respective murders. When one starts entertaining "possibilities" that are not warranted or indicated by the known evidence then we are just engaging in theorizing, not interpreting evidence as part of an investigation.

Ill just add Phillips also didnt see Jacks handiwork in Elizabeth Strides wound. "Is there any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case? - There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones." Not the only time a suspected Ripper kill had the possible marking of intention to decapitate. Or at the very least, definitively sever both arteries. Liz had one artery severed completely.