Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[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,

As I have pointed out to you so many time before he was not a medical "expert." Not in the way we use the word today. Please stop calling him that. He was also not subject to a cross examination so we have no way of knowing how long he took or how he arrived at his conclusions. We also have no idea of the extent and nature of his training.

I agree his opinion must carry weight. I never stated otherwise. No need for quotes because it was an opinion not a statement of fact.

c.d.

[c.d.]

....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...

Yes, but other people do.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t know if this is a tech issue but you’ve posted the same response 3 times. #38, #42 and #44.

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.

Phillips said nothing about what the killer might or might not have intended so what can he add to the subject. The wounds tell us absolutely nothing about intention or whether or not it was the same killer.

2. Not sure what that refers to.

It refers to you dismissing the opinion of someone who sees the entirely plausible possibility of interruption as something that’s not based on that persons opinion. You are saying that people only suggest interruption because they are somehow desperate to link the Stride murder to the series which clearly isn’t the case. Even on the face of it this suggestion doesn’t hold water because I’ve stated numerous times that I accept the possibility that it might not have been connected. Basically your comment is in a similar vein to Trevor’s often quoted phrase ‘defending the old, established theories.’ As if it’s a kind of commitment to a script.

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?

I didn’t claim that it was reasonable to assume that the same man killed both. I said that it was reasonable to accept the possibility. If the police investigated this today they naturally see the possibility of a connection and there’s simply no way that they would dismiss this possibility on the grounds of the absence mutilation when they knew that interruption was an entirely reasonable possible explanation.

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.

Again Michael, I’ve assumed nothing as I fully accept the possibility of Stride being killed by someone who wasn’t the ripper. You are suggesting a preconception which doesn’t exist. And of course we have a ‘linkage.’ A very obvious one. Two prostitutes killed with their throats cut on the same night, within a small area and within less than an hour of each other. The difference is the lack of mutilation. Therefore we’re left with an a or b situation - a) two different killers, or b) same killer being interrupted.

4. One again, if you personally want to entertain the idea that an interruption occurred, thats up to you.

I ‘entertain’ it because it’s impossible not to.

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.

It suggests nothing of the kind. In most cases when someone is murdered no one sees anyone running away….this neither suggests or proves anything. The evidence suggests nothing. Only that a woman had her throat cut. That’s it.

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

There’s not a single thing about the evidence which suggests that the killer wasn’t or couldn’t have been interrupted. Absolutely nothing. I don’t know why you pursue this? You make the claim that anyone that links Stride isn’t doing it for genuine reasons although I fail to see why anyone would ‘want’ Stride to be a victim as no one is keeping score for the ripper; it’s not a competition. To combat your claim, it might also be mentioned (again) that perhaps you only want to dismiss Stride (and Eddowes) as victims because you favour Isenschmidt as a killer and he can’t have been active on that particular night.

There is no physical evidence for or against interruption. It’s simply a possibility that’s accepted by numerous very knowledgeable students of the case (and some that don’t….plus the undecided) so I really can’t see the point of going around in circles and bending over backwards to try and sideline this possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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". It’s 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.

And if Albert Cadosch had spent more time in his yard making some noise Annie’s killer might have fled just after he’d cut her throat leaving absolutely no sign of an ‘intention’ to mutilate. And we would be dismissing a ripper victim as a non-ripper victim. Mistakenly. And yet in the Stride case we have a person (Diemschitz) who actually did arrive on the spot and so could have interrupted the killer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I can't rule out Stride soliciting based on her age.

What about club members saying they had never seen prostitutes at that location? Do you put any weight on that?

And while I am reluctant to disparage one of my own, sometimes with men it's any port in a storm, if you get my drift. And did these working men have the means and the opportunity to avail themselves of a $500 a night Vegas hooker?

Stride was found to have no money on her person. No money equals no soliciting, unless it is claimed that she immediately commenced soliciting after being seen with Parcelman, who must conveniently leave the scene.

Well, when it comes down to that, JTR has never been identified either.

When it comes down to it, JtR left a few traces of his existence. The men described by Schwartz did not.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Do we have proof that Stride was the club’s cleaning lady?

Deimschitz: I had never seen her before.

Herschburg: None of us recognised the woman.

She was not the cleaning lady.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why is this an issue? She was certainly there so she must have been there for a reason but we have absolutely no way of deducing what she was doing. How can something be seen as suspicious when we have no clue why she was there.

Schwartz essentially claimed that Stride was a sitting duck, and I saw her standing there when she was approached by a big bully. The claim she was standing in that gateway is just too convenient to take seriously.

Perhaps she’d used the loo?

She used the loo at a rowdy men's club like it was a public toilet? Don't think so.

Perhaps someone that she was with went inside the club or to use the loo? Perhaps she’s arranged to meet someone there? The only mystery is that we don’t know why she was there.

Someone she was with would be Parcelman, right? Do you not suppose that someone carrying a large paper parcel into the club at around the time of the murder, would have been remembered by at least one person?

It’s not a mystery that she was there.

The question is why, not if. Your "not a mystery" schtick is not going to work here.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You have no evidence for that.

Indeed I do. What evidence do you have that Stride was soliciting when she was murdered?

‘There is no such thing as a coincidence’ should have no place in serious discussion. Leon Goldstein is a complete nonentity in this case.

Your habit of making strident pronouncements tell us more about what you want the truth to be, than it does of your ability to argue a case.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fanny Mortimer did not see Elizabeth Stride or her killer, regardless of whether her killer was the Ripper. Sorting Mortimer's statements out is tricky, since the newspaper accounts are full of contradictions.

Is it a contradiction that Mortimer supposedly heard the sound of PC Smith's plod, then went to her door but seemingly did not catch a glimpse of Stride standing in the gateway to Dutfield's Yard, just a few yards away?

[c.d.]

What about club members saying they had never seen prostitutes at that location? Do you put any weight on that?



Stride was found to have no money on her person. No money equals no soliciting, unless it is claimed that she immediately commenced soliciting after being seen with Parcelman, who must conveniently leave the scene.



When it comes down to it, JtR left a few traces of his existence. The men described by Schwartz did not.

Stride may or may not have been soliciting. There is simply no way to tell. As for the club members' statement, they might have been reluctant to admit occasional soliciting as it reflected badly on the club. And there is a first time for everything. The bottom line is that Stride did not have to be actively soliciting to be a Ripper victim as we have no way of knowing her response if approached by Jack.

I wouldn't say no money equals no soliciting if she had no takers for her favors that night or possibly she had money and was robbed by her killer.

That there are no traces of the men described by Schwartz only tells us that there were no traces. It does not tell us that they did not exist.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

These are reasonable possibilities. I just question the associating of Kidney to the BSM.

PC Lamb: I scarcely could see her boots. She looked as if she had been laid quietly down. Her clothes were not in the least rumpled.

This is not remotely BSM-like.

Suppose we had no evidence of Schwartz's account. Do you think someone here could make up something similar and make a good case for it?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Stride may or may not have been soliciting. There is simply no way to tell. As for the club members' statement, they might have been reluctant to admit occasional soliciting as it reflected badly on the club. And there is a first time for everything.

Did Wess, Eagle and Diemschitz all lie about this? Anything else they all lied about?

The bottom line is that Stride did not have to be actively soliciting to be a Ripper victim as we have no way of knowing her response if approached by Jack.

The bottom line is that Schwartz's tale is uncorroborated, so any speculation as to why Stride was supposedly standing in the gateway is based on an assumption. Further speculation builds on top of this ...

I wouldn't say no money equals no soliciting if she had no takers for her favors that night or possibly she had money and was robbed by her killer.

Are you making this up as you go? Stride had been seen with other men during the evening. Were these men not takers? As for being robbed by her killer, the story would go something like this. BS man throws Stride to the ground, she gets up and he demands money, which she hands over. She then submits to going into the darkness of the yard with him, which she does without making a sound. Remember ...

PC Lamb: There were no signs of a struggle.

I guess the other option would be that he rifled through her pockets after the murder, but there is no evidence for this.

That there are no traces of the men described by Schwartz only tells us that there were no traces. It does not tell us that they did not exist.

BS Man is very un-Ripper like, yet "and then Jack the Ripper came along" has a very forced feel to it. Things do not add up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Schwartz essentially claimed that Stride was a sitting duck, and I saw her standing there when she was approached by a big bully. The claim she was standing in that gateway is just too convenient to take seriously.

So if we had a modern day situation where a woman was standing somewhere waiting for a friend and she got assaulted by a passing drunk you would find that ‘too convenient’ and suspicious? I won’t be alone when I say that I can’t for the life of me see why that must somehow have been the case. People wait for people. People do this in public. People get assaulted. If anyone finds this ‘suspicious’ then they could find absolutely anything ‘suspicious.’

She used the loo at a rowdy men's club like it was a public toilet? Don't think so.

The loo was outdoors. There were at least 2 women in the club who would have used it at some point. And do you really think that a person who had sex in the street would have been too delicate to use an outdoor loo? I’m not suggesting that she did use it. I’m talking possibilities…no more.

Someone she was with would be Parcelman, right? Do you not suppose that someone carrying a large paper parcel into the club at around the time of the murder, would have been remembered by at least one person?

No. You assume Parcelman I don’t.

The question is why, not if. Your "not a mystery" schtick is not going to work here.

Im afraid that it will because, unless you hadn’t noticed by now, you are in a very small minority with your conspiracist version of events. Most people don’t agree with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed I do. What evidence do you have that Stride was soliciting when she was murdered?

I have no evidence that she was soliciting but then again I haven’t stated that she was soliciting. It’s simply a possibility among others. She might have been waiting for someone and BS man might have been a former client looking for ‘business’ but she wasn’t interested.

Your habit of making strident pronouncements tell us more about what you want the truth to be, than it does of your ability to argue a case.

I’ve said that we can’t be sure if she was a ripper victim or not. I’ve said that we have no way of knowing why she was there. I’ve suggested the possibility that Schwartz could have mistaken a bit of a drunken scuffle as a more violent attack (possibly due to his lack of English) I’ve suggested that BS man might not have been her killer. I’ve suggested that Schwartz might have been mistaken on the time that he passed the club. None of which I’ve stated as a fact. If you consider this to be ‘strident’ then I’d suggest you check a dictionary.

You’re the one looking at convoluted theories and plots…not me. Look at any aspect of the crime and you can imagine some kind of ‘mystery’ if that’s how you’re inclined but real life doesn’t happen like that. Ask the police. Ask them how many times when they find someone dead in the street do they discover plots and false witnesses? About never I’d suggest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it a contradiction that Mortimer supposedly heard the sound of PC Smith's plod, then went to her door but seemingly did not catch a glimpse of Stride standing in the gateway to Dutfield's Yard, just a few yards away?

No it’s not. Firstly, we don’t know exactly what time she was on her doorstep because we have contradictory versions of what she said and did. And secondly, it was a gateway. Stride might have been standing a couple of feet back out of Mortimer’s sight.