Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Throat cut' is too broad.

'In the right area' is too ambiguous. Whitechapel ✓ Berner street ✘

'No robbery' - robbery would have to be common enough to include.

Changing the criteria a little could give a much lower score.

So robbery would have to be common enough to include but we can dismiss location because the other murders didn’t occur in Berner Street? Come on. We could only express doubts if she’d been killed 5 miles away for example.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

IF THE KILLER WAS INTERRUPTED WE COULD EXPECT NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT INTERRUPTION.

By definition, we would expect the victim to be in some state between throat cut and fully ripped, inclusive of the first but not last condition.

If the killer had only intended to cut throat, the victim would of course be in the first of many states compatible with interruption.

The chances of a mutilation intending killer being interrupted at the only throat cut intended state, are therefore low but not zero.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Also, didn't Smith say that he "went" to Berner Street at 1am, not that he arrived there then, or was in Berner Street by then?

Love,

Caz
X

Good question.

It could mean one of two things.

One: returned to Berner Street at 1am

Two: (from the starting point of the beat,) headed to Berner Street at 1am

The difference can be seen in this map (from Smith's Beat)...



The easterly travel from Gower's-walk (the starting point) to Berner street would take a couple of minutes (approximately).

The later Smith gets to Berner street, the later he was last there (all other things being equal).
If he arrives at the top of the street at 1:02, instead of 1:00, he last enters Berner street at about 12:35, and exits the street a few minutes later.
It is on the northerly leg that Smith sees Stride and parcel man.
By the time Fanny Mortimer is outside, these two are both out of her sight, so if we have Fanny getting to her doorstep at 12:40 (so not quite the immediately suggested in the Evening News, Oct 1), she is on her balcony until about 12:50.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Prostitute (full or part time).......tick
Throat cut...............................tick
Mutilation................................No
In the right area.......................tick
At the right time period.............tick
No robbery..............................tick

And we have a plausible possible explanation for the ‘no.’

And we might ask ‘what would a killer intent on mutilation do if he was prevented from doing so?’ I’d suggest that he might go looking for another victim?

'Throat cut' is too broad.

'In the right area' is too ambiguous. Whitechapel ✓ Berner street ✘

'No robbery' - robbery would have to be common enough to include.

Changing the criteria a little could give a much lower score.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What about the fact that two of the three papers which carried the story reported that Koz came into the club at six thirty, not twelve thirty?

Daily News 1 Oct
"I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening."

Evening News
"I came into the club about which you are asking me at half-past twelve o'clock."

Irish Times
"I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since."

If 2 papers say x, and 1 says y, we should probably take the 2 over the 1 - highest count detail wins.
Definitely if it were 3 vs 1.

If 2 papers say x, and 1 says x + y, we should probably go with the 1 - most detail wins.
Definitely so if it's 2 vs 2.

If 1 paper says x, and 2 papers have no equivalent, we should go with the 1 - only detail wins.

If 1 paper says x, and another says -x, it should go to discussion, and/or both versions be regarded as equally plausible - neither detail wins
2x vs -x would be equivalent to highest count detail wins.

These rules would be a good start in dealing with conflicts of detail, but only if that detail is fairly unambiguous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry, one more for the road..I had to after that post...

"One day you are walking down the street and you see someone well covered up and of average height and build attacking Caz. They struggle and he gets Caz's handbag. At that point you shout out "Oi, stop thief!" He stops and runs away. If that mugger was actually me (the Shoe Thief) what evidence would there be, after you had interrupted me, that I had intended to steal Caz's shoes?"

I would have evidence that you were a thief via the witness, and questions as to how you expected to get her shoes when you wrestled with a handbag. Personally I wish you take her computer, but anyway...

Demonstrably a thief, like Strides killer was demonstrably a killer. The knife wielding maniac Caz referred to isnt in that crimes evidence. Just a guy with a knife. Like thousands of others in that city at that time.

But you favour one stop shopping...like the people who imagine this one man is the only one who mutilates, dismembers, makes one cut, cleans windows, sweeps chimneys, and validates cart and horse parking.

As you can tell Im no longer taking this seriously, because that would be giving it credibility. Of which there is none in sight.

Crap answer.

The answer is that you would have had absolutely no way of knowing that I’d intended to take the shoes. Just like the killer of Stride.

QED

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry, one more for the road..I had to after that post...

"One day you are walking down the street and you see someone well covered up and of average height and build attacking Caz. They struggle and he gets Caz's handbag. At that point you shout out "Oi, stop thief!" He stops and runs away. If that mugger was actually me (the Shoe Thief) what evidence would there be, after you had interrupted me, that I had intended to steal Caz's shoes?"

I would have evidence that you were a thief via the witness, and questions as to how you expected to get her shoes when you wrestled with a handbag. Personally I wish you take her computer, but anyway...

Demonstrably a thief, like Strides killer was demonstrably a killer. The knife wielding maniac Caz referred to isnt in that crimes evidence. Just a guy with a knife. Like thousands of others in that city at that time.

But you favour one stop shopping...like the people who imagine this one man is the only one who mutilates, dismembers, makes one cut, cleans windows, sweeps chimneys, and validates cart and horse parking.

As you can tell Im no longer taking this seriously, because that would be giving it credibility. Of which there is none in sight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Surely the obvious isnt that obscure for you. Liz Stride is killed....end of conversation. Not ripped, not mutilated, no skirts pushed up...nada. The truth is that you make these bizarre suggestions of what people said based on your own imagination and some bizarre belief you can address your inconsistencies with serial killer data. Like your interruption idea...NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE...yet you buy into into anyway. Im relieved your not a cop

You can’t help yourself with this question can you Michael. I’ll repeat my scenario..

On the subject of would there have been evidence of interruption....

I'm a mugger who steals women's handbag's and shoes (I'm not btw) known as the Shoe Thief to the Police. I always target women of Caz's age group and hair colour within the town where Caz lives. I'm always well covered up so there is precious little to identify me by apart from my height and build which is average.

One day you are walking down the street and you see someone well covered up and of average height and build attacking Caz. They struggle and he gets Caz's handbag. At that point you shout out "Oi, stop thief!" He stops and runs away.

If that mugger was actually me (the Shoe Thief) what evidence would there be, after you had interrupted me, that I had intended to steal Caz's shoes?

.......

IF THE KILLER WAS INTERRUPTED WE COULD EXPECT NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT INTERRUPTION.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nah Josh,his hovercraft was too full of eels.

[DJA]

Saz you.

[Joshua Rogan]

Perhaps the first horse and cart noises were drowned out by the bouzouki music coming from the club?

[DJA]

Nah Josh,his hovercraft was too full of eels.

[caz]

Prostitute (full or part time).......tick
Throat cut...............................tick
Mutilation................................No
In the right area.......................tick
At the right time period.............tick
No robbery..............................tick

And we have a plausible possible explanation for the ‘no.’

And we might ask ‘what would a killer intent on mutilation do if he was prevented from doing so?’ I’d suggest that he might go looking for another victim?

Too easy, Herlock. It must be more complex than that, or it's no fun for the conspiracy theorists.

What are the chances of one of the throat-cutting mutilation murders happening within an hour of the one throat-cutting murder where the only significant differences were a) the absence of mutilation, and b) some fairly obvious reasons why an attempted mutilation on this occasion would have been inadvisable, and a successful one unlikely?

Michael can move the pony and cart around like pieces on a chess board; suggest that Mrs M had defective hearing; and accuse Louis D of trying to pervert the course of justice, but the fact remains that he did arrive, and he did discover Stride, very shortly after her killer must have been there, cutting her throat. How much opportunity was there, realistically, for the killer - whoever he was - to have hung about at the scene before he too would have been discovered there? That doesn't prove he was the same man who seized the opportunity to mutilate victims in Buck's Row, Hanbury St, Mitre Square and Miller's Court, and got away safely each time, despite the difficulties of all those locations, but it certainly can't rule him out.

The killer in every case was lucky, but also no idiot. Would he have hung around to mutilate Nichols, if Cross and Paul had come along a bit earlier? No, of course not. Would he have hung around to mutilate Chapman, if someone had come into the yard at the wrong moment? No, he wouldn't. Similarly with Eddowes and Kelly, in their respective locations. How many women could anyone have expected to mutilate in peace, without a witness potentially catching him at it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Joshua Rogan]

You want Louis to arrive with his pony and cart at 12.40, without Fanny hearing a thing, and then you want her to hear 'the bootsteps of a few men' around 1am and mistake this for Louis arriving with his pony and cart. It's nuts, Michael. Did Fanny not know what a pony and cart sounded like? Or did Louis tell everyone to make their bootsteps sound just like his pony and cart, to confuse that stupid woman, Mrs Mortimer, who was bound to be listening behind her twitching curtains?

It's cocoanuts! Well, some reports do say that Louis sold cocoanuts from his cart. Perhaps he cut them in half and did a Monty Python?

[Michael W Richards]

Ive been dealing with crap like this for years, people who want to believe in Santa Claus, or in this case, Anti-Claus. I dont care anymore about reminding you or anyone else of what the evidence says. Good luck to you on your monster hunt. Im done.