Stride..a victim?

[Michael W Richards]

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?

Well lets start at the top shall we....there is no evidnec that Liz Stride was soliciting the night she is killed, there is for both the prior Canonical victims...so WORKING street woman, no. Throat cut is accurate, whereas both the priors had double throat cuts that nicked their spines. So, less dramatic cut on Stride. In the right area...if you mean where other murders had occurred, yeah. Right time period...hours earlier than both priors, so no. Liz left her house having earned 6d that day, we dont know if it was taken from her or if she spent it on cachous and/or a flower arrangement, so.. perhaps.

Lets see if there is any evidence that Liz Strides killer didnt complete what he intended....there isnt any. So that last line is purely speculative and not based on any known facts.

As I said before, these are all attempts to address why Liz Stride dies unlike any other Canonical, and most of the rest of the Unsolved Murders file. They are grasps at straws, ..instead of taking whats there youd like to create a scenario based on a serial mutilator.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Michael W Richards]

It's a matter of perception though. The murder of Sarah Brown is another throat cutting killing. That's all that links Stride to Eddowes likewise. But the differences in the Brown case render that similarity moot. A domestic, at home, with the killer turning himself in straight away.

We can view the throat cut as a tenuous link between Stride and Eddowes, but the fact that these were random killings, outdoors, of the poorest class of women, in close proximity to each other and previous deaths with the same profile make those similarities outweigh the differences. It just depends how you look at it.

Add the fact that a torso was found in Whitehall at this time, and it's not unreasonable to wonder just how many madmen were in London in 1888.

Well, all I can say is that both Physical and Circumstantial evidence available for the Stride killing suggests the virtual opposite of the Ripper, who sought to mutilate more than just kill, and killed working street women. The first 2 cases were almost a match in every significant aspect. Strides murder matches these preceding events in only 2 aspects, that she was killed off the street like Annie was, and with a knife.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

You forget that 3 women had their throats cut and died that night, but 2 are unsolved. Another murder happening that night isnt sufficient grounds for it or any murder to be matched with another by a single killer Herlock, surely you realize that. The 2 acts have very little in common aside from a knife being used.

It's a matter of perception though. The murder of Sarah Brown is another throat cutting killing. That's all that links Stride to Eddowes likewise. But the differences in the Brown case render that similarity moot. A domestic, at home, with the killer turning himself in straight away.

We can view the throat cut as a tenuous link between Stride and Eddowes, but the fact that these were random killings, outdoors, of the poorest class of women, in close proximity to each other and previous deaths with the same profile make those similarities outweigh the differences. It just depends how you look at it.

Add the fact that a torso was found in Whitehall at this time, and it's not unreasonable to wonder just how many madmen were in London in 1888.

[Michael W Richards]

We can’t deduce any further motive based purely on the throat-cutting but, as there’s a possibility of the killer being interrupted (which I know that you don’t accept,) further motive remains an unknown. All that we can say is that this murder and throat-cutting of a prostitute occurred within the time period of a series of throat-cutting prostitute murders which were hardly an everyday occurrence and that were within a small geographical location. And that there was another murder with mutilation less than an hour later and 15 minutes walk away. As i’ve said in an earlier post I’m not a statistician but I’d be interested to know what the odds are of there being two throat-cutting prostitute murderers in operation within an hour of each other and less than a mile apart?

You forget that 3 women had their throats cut and died that night, but 2 are unsolved. Another murder happening that night isnt sufficient grounds for it or any murder to be matched with another by a single killer Herlock, surely you realize that. The 2 acts have very little in common aside from a knife being used.

Thinking that the odds are small for more than one man killing with a knife in a square mile or less is all well and good until you remember just how many people lived in that particular square mile. I believe it was around 800,000. And how many a 10 minute walk away? But just one knife wielding killer? That seems logical? The one in a million line must have been coined for just this situation. Knives were common, killers werent all that rare, and even if you want to group 5 women under this Jacks umbrella because of the geography and timing you still have 7 or 8 murders of very similar women in that same rough area and rough place in time to address. Clearly, there was more than 1 murderer acting at that time in that area.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I realize that connecting any dots requires a leap of faith to some extent. Its not going to ever be black and white on the page, if anything earthshaking does not come from research into these crimes. The only factor that for me is essential to find in a series of murders is Motive. If he just kills because he feels compelled to do so, if he dismembers,...it is the result of a core Motivation for him. In the case of Annie Chapman, which to me represents the kill that most exposed the killer by the specificities shown, the killer cut Annie is such a way that facilitated accessing and taking exactly what he sought all along. Murder alone was not the Motive, it was a step towards a goal. He achieved his goal. Despite the precarious environment...the sun beginning to rise, 17 people in that house of which some presumably would be readying themselves for work. Windows of neighbors looking down into that yard. We dont know if he even closed the house door when he killed and cut. He was focused.

Liz Strides killer had 2 seconds of very poor judgement likely due to anger or booze or both. There is no evident Motive beyond inflicting harm.

We can’t deduce any further motive based purely on the throat-cutting but, as there’s a possibility of the killer being interrupted (which I know that you don’t accept,) further motive remains an unknown. All that we can say is that this murder and throat-cutting of a prostitute occurred within the time period of a series of throat-cutting prostitute murders which were hardly an everyday occurrence and that were within a small geographical location. And that there was another murder with mutilation less than an hour later and 15 minutes walk away. As i’ve said in an earlier post I’m not a statistician but I’d be interested to know what the odds are of there being two throat-cutting prostitute murderers in operation within an hour of each other and less than a mile apart?

[Michael W Richards]

IF Liz Stride could be expunged from the Group of Five, what new perspectives might be gained? Removing the increase in hostilities as a result of "interruptions" argument, how might Kates new injuries then be explained.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know how many he killed Michael. And you're right of course in that we can't prove who was or wasn't a victim. We never will. It's down to individual interpretation. As I've said it's quite possible that Stride wasn't a victim. Tabram and Mackenzie might have been...who knows. There can be almost no doubt about Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly though imo. Fisherman believes that the Ripper was also responsible for the Torso Murders and, whilst there doesn't appear to be general agreement with the theory, he's certainly not alone in (and maybe more will agree after his book comes out.) So many unknowns.

I realize that connecting any dots requires a leap of faith to some extent. Its not going to ever be black and white on the page, if anything earthshaking does not come from research into these crimes. The only factor that for me is essential to find in a series of murders is Motive. If he just kills because he feels compelled to do so, if he dismembers,...it is the result of a core Motivation for him. In the case of Annie Chapman, which to me represents the kill that most exposed the killer by the specificities shown, the killer cut Annie is such a way that facilitated accessing and taking exactly what he sought all along. Murder alone was not the Motive, it was a step towards a goal. He achieved his goal. Despite the precarious environment...the sun beginning to rise, 17 people in that house of which some presumably would be readying themselves for work. Windows of neighbors looking down into that yard. We dont know if he even closed the house door when he killed and cut. He was focused.

Liz Strides killer had 2 seconds of very poor judgement likely due to anger or booze or both. There is no evident Motive beyond inflicting harm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Herlock if we are talking plainly, it is the Ripper enthusiasts who most often manipulate witnesses veracity and nullify accounts that do no correspond to the overlying premise...that only 1 killer in Whitechapel worked from late August to mid November. Presumably thats when the rest of them came back out I suppose...1 even killing just like that Ripper fellow the following year. Surely he couldnt be responsible for a Canonical murder as well...since Alice matches the pattern that Liz Strides murder dramatically deviates from? So... where were the other violent men during this time? Hopping? Where was Alices killer..was she his first? Can you say that Alice doesnt belong with a Canonical Group but Liz Stride does? On what basis..that you and others have decided he just quits after Mary?

The most enduring and long lasting unproven theory is that one man killed Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate and Mary. So my more recent suggestion that 1 man killed 2, perhaps 3, of the fabled Canonical Five is just in its infancy in comparison. Lets see how it pans out over time.

I don't know how many he killed Michael. And you're right of course in that we can't prove who was or wasn't a victim. We never will. It's down to individual interpretation. As I've said it's quite possible that Stride wasn't a victim. Tabram and Mackenzie might have been...who knows. There can be almost no doubt about Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly though imo. Fisherman believes that the Ripper was also responsible for the Torso Murders and, whilst there doesn't appear to be general agreement with the theory, he's certainly not alone in (and maybe more will agree after his book comes out.) So many unknowns.

[Michael W Richards]

I think Herlock if we are talking plainly, it is the Ripper enthusiasts who most often manipulate witnesses veracity and nullify accounts that do no correspond to the overlying premise...that only 1 killer in Whitechapel worked from late August to mid November. Presumably thats when the rest of them came back out I suppose...1 even killing just like that Ripper fellow the following year. Surely he couldnt be responsible for a Canonical murder as well...since Alice matches the pattern that Liz Strides murder dramatically deviates from? So... where were the other violent men during this time? Hopping? Where was Alices killer..was she his first? Can you say that Alice doesnt belong with a Canonical Group but Liz Stride does? On what basis..that you and others have decided he just quits after Mary?

The most enduring and long lasting unproven theory is that one man killed Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate and Mary. So my more recent suggestion that 1 man killed 2, perhaps 3, of the fabled Canonical Five is just in its infancy in comparison. Lets see how it pans out over time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n747584][QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n747582]

I see no evidence of any kind of plan here I’m afraid. Just a few understandable discrepancies which can be explained calmly and reasonably and which fit the facts.

No, you apparently saw a situation that requires a choice between the majority of corroborated witness accounts and the individual unsubstantiated or validated ones. You choose the latter. Thats fine, now that thats established we need not discuss it further. You established a position without any solid ground. Ok.

Mine is built on a foundation supported by 4 pillars and overseen by another.

I understand that to have this Ripper fellow involved here requires something extraordinary...like 4 witnesses that are all wrong even though they all give the same details, like must-have-missed events claimed by individuals to be preferable to contradictory statements, like people just not seeing each other while in the same place at the same time,....then he strikes again later, he does Rip this time, but the scene is also staged like a ballet...with the entrances and exits timed just so for effect. Was this ballet interrupted in Berner Street, well....you would have us believe that. But the truth is far simpler, there is no evidence of one therefore incorporating it into a grander theory is useless. Liz Stride likely pissed off a thug then tried to walk away, he grabbed her scarf from behind and in 2 seconds acted impulsively. Not a spooky Ripper dude at all...just some thug with a temper or even good sense ruined by booze.

I have it relatively easy when it comes to what evidence I must commit to. I dont have any agenda. It has to be useful, it has to be secondhand verified and it has to make sense logically and tangibly. Im not trying to find something in the evidence and ruling out what doesnt fit with that. Im not forced to suggest actions that have no foundation or support, just because they make things fit better for my preconceptions. I dont expect Jack...I look for Jack. And I see a dead woman who in 2 seconds was killed. No evidence at all a mutilator was there.

Thats why its so easy. Your just making it harder. Just follow the evidence instead.

You have very fallible witnesses which you assume to be reliable. Your focusing on the word ‘precisely’ in one reporters version of what Diemschutz said is desperate stuff Michael. Surely you can see that? Ignore that, and we most certainly should, and we have Diemschutz telling us that he passed the clock at 1.00 on the way to the yard. Mortimer heard a horse and cart at just that time. Why? Because that’s undoubtedly the time that he got there.

The other ‘witnesses’ are hardly convincing are they? Not by any stretch. Pillars built on a quicksand of imagination I’m afraid.

........

You say that you don’t have an agenda? But you have a theory to defend. The motive for your proposed plan/cover-up doesn't hold together by any stretch of the imagination.

Purpose - to draw attention away from the club; to protect its reputation and so prevent the police from closing it down.

Achievement - a body still in the yard of their club. A confrontation directly outside of the club. A potential killer apparently trying to pull the victim into the yard of that club. An anti-Semitic insult outside a Jewish club.

Could this plan have been less effective?

..........

This ‘ripper fellow?. The old multiple killers fantasy. Ok. ‘Staged like a ballet’ because a killer hides in shadows or gets away before a police man arrives? Of course the killer couldn't have had a bit of good fortune? Of course not. The rules of the conspiracy game don’t allow for that. How many unsolved murders do the police currently have that could be marked down to conspiracy by employing that kind of thinking. I’d go for Occam’s Razor. It may not be as exciting as a conspiracy but it’s far, far more likely to be correct.

........

Your reliant on fallible witnesses most of whom played, at best, a tangential role in the case. There’s zero evidence for a cover-up but none happened. Was she killed by the ripper? Very probably but there exists a possibility that she wasn’t. We cannot prove either way. Can we prove that the killer wasn’t interrupted? Of course we can’t and everyone knows it.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I see no evidence of any kind of plan here I’m afraid. Just a few understandable discrepancies which can be explained calmly and reasonably and which fit the facts.

Fit the facts, or the faith?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Its like being on one of those Forums where people suggest that JFK was shot by his own driver or that the killer used a loaded umbrella.

JFK - now wasn't he the dude that had Marilyn Monroe killed?

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n747582]

I see no evidence of any kind of plan here I’m afraid. Just a few understandable discrepancies which can be explained calmly and reasonably and which fit the facts.


[QUOTE]

No, you apparently saw a situation that requires a choice between the majority of corroborated witness accounts and the individual unsubstantiated or validated ones. You choose the latter. Thats fine, now that thats established we need not discuss it further. You established a position without any solid ground. Ok.

Mine is built on a foundation supported by 4 pillars and overseen by another.

I understand that to have this Ripper fellow involved here requires something extraordinary...like 4 witnesses that are all wrong even though they all give the same details, like must-have-missed events claimed by individuals to be preferable to contradictory statements, like people just not seeing each other while in the same place at the same time,....then he strikes again later, he does Rip this time, but the scene is also staged like a ballet...with the entrances and exits timed just so for effect. Was this ballet interrupted in Berner Street, well....you would have us believe that. But the truth is far simpler, there is no evidence of one therefore incorporating it into a grander theory is useless. Liz Stride likely pissed off a thug then tried to walk away, he grabbed her scarf from behind and in 2 seconds acted impulsively. Not a spooky Ripper dude at all...just some thug with a temper or even good sense ruined by booze.

I have it relatively easy when it comes to what evidence I must commit to. I dont have any agenda. It has to be useful, it has to be secondhand verified and it has to make sense logically and tangibly. Im not trying to find something in the evidence and ruling out what doesnt fit with that. Im not forced to suggest actions that have no foundation or support, just because they make things fit better for my preconceptions. I dont expect Jack...I look for Jack. And I see a dead woman who in 2 seconds was killed. No evidence at all a mutilator was there.

Thats why its so easy. Your just making it harder. Just follow the evidence instead.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Baxter: Had you noticed any man or woman in Berner-street when you were there before?
Smith: Yes, talking together.
Baxter: Was the woman anything like the deceased?
Smith: Yes. I saw her face, and I think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman.
Baxter: Are you certain?
Smith: I feel certain. She stood on the pavement a few yards from where the body was found, but on the opposite side of the street.
Baxter: Did you look at the man at all?
Smith: Yes. He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand. The parcel was about 18in. long and 6in. to 8in. broad.
…
Baxter: Did you see the man's face?
Smith: He had no whiskers, but I did not notice him much. I should say he was twenty-eight years of age. He was of respectable appearance, but I could not state what he was. The woman had a flower in her breast. It rained very little after eleven o'clock. There were but few about in the bye streets. When I saw the body at the mortuary I recognised it at once.

Pall Mall Gazette, November 14:

WHAT IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT?

A paragraph in the morning papers states that the police have received from Mr. Samuel Osborne, wire worker, 20, Garden row, London road, a statement to the effect that he was walking along St. Paul's churchyard yesterday behind a respectably dressed man, when a parcel, wrapped in a newspaper, fell from the man's coat. Osborne told him that he had dropped something; but the man denied that the parcel belonged to him. Osborne picked up the parcel, and found that it contained a knife, having a peculiarly shaped handle and a thick blade, six or seven inches long, with stains upon it resembling blood. The parcel also contained a brown kid glove, smeared with similar stains on both sides. Osborne found a constable, and together they searched for the mysterious individual, but without success. The parcel, says the paragraph, was handed to the City police authorities, "who, however, attach no importance to the matter." What on earth could be more important, after the statement made by the man Hutchinson and quoted above?

The reason for the City police apparently not attaching any importance to the matter, is found in the Star, also Nov 14:

The police have received from Mr. Samuel Osborne, wireworker, 20, Garden-row, London-road, a statement to the effect that he was walking along St. Paul's Churchyard yesterday behind a respectably-dressed man, when a parcel wrapped in a newspaper fell from the man's coat. Osborne told him that he had dropped something, but the man denied the parcel belonged to him. Osborne picked up the parcel and found that it contained A KNIFE WITH A PECULIARLY SHAPED HANDLE, and a thick blade 6in. or 7in. long, with stains upon it resembling blood; the parcel also contained a brown kid glove, smeared with similar stains on both sides. Osborne found a constable, and together they searched for the mysterious individual, but without success. The parcel was handed over to the City police authorities, who, however, attach not the slightest importance to the matter, as the knife proved to be a table knife, eaten with rust, and so blunt that it could not possibly have been used in connection with the late murders.

One wonders how truthful the City police might have been about this.
How many table knife's in 1888 had a 165mm blade, and with a peculiarly shaped handle?
Furthermore, how many respectably dressed men would find it necessary to a carry about a blunt, rusty table knife in a parcel in their coat, and then deny the parcel was theirs, when it fell to the ground?