Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Morris Eagle at the Inquest.
    A Stride thread under the heading Suspects, and in post # 245 the Eagle appears.

    Michael, I recall you fingered Morris Eagle for her murder.

    What say you, kind sir,

    Paddy

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post

      A Stride thread under the heading Suspects, and in post # 245 the Eagle appears.

      Michael, I recall you fingered Morris Eagle for her murder.

      What say you, kind sir,

      Paddy
      Ill say Paddy that of the possibilities within the Club staffers, he does strike me as being of interest for this crime. He is returning to the club after taking his date home from the meeting, does he have a second date planned maybe? He "couldnt be sure" whether Liz was there when he says he entered the passageway at 12:40, I think that sounds like avoiding the main issue rather than reciting from memory, ...I personally think he must have known one way or the other, he says he is afraid of the sight of blood, but "tumbled pell mell" down the stairs to see what had happened when he hears a woman has been murdered in the passageway. If he is afraid of blood, why rush to see some? I dont have any fixed idea of what went down or exactly how, but Lave and Eagle both state they were by the gates at around 12:40, but neither sees anything or anyone not even each other. Not sure I trust those statements, and if Im correct about them being fictional, then what of the 4 witnesses that say they were there at 12:40 over the body?
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        Let's put some numbers on this.

        Hypothetically speaking, how much time elapses between the cutting of the throat, and some obvious sign that mutilation is about to commence?
        Let's say that sign is the grabbing of the skirt, to hoist it up.
        Perhaps as little as two seconds - this guy is fast - but let's say 5 seconds.

        Now how much time would he like to spend in the mutilation phase? Let's say 5 minutes.
        However, at some point during that 5 minutes, it will become ambiguous as to whether he would want to continue.
        So let's say the non-ambiguous mutilation timespan is 2 minutes.

        So we have a sub-total timespan of 125 seconds.
        If interruption occurs in the first 5 seconds, there will be no physical evidence for it.
        So what are the chances that he flees, leaving no evidence of interruption?

        5/125 * 100/1 = 4%

        Therefore the chances of the killer having had no intention of mutilating the Stride, are 96%.
        That's all very well and good, but it doesn't mean we can safely rule out the ripper here on the balance of probability. He may have had no intention of mutilating anyone in this particular location, or even at this particular time, but cut Stride's throat for any number of other reasons. After all, her killer had a sharp knife on him and knew how to use it, and he had an unknown motive. Why is the ripper not allowed to use his knife in any situation where another killer might do so? If a witness had come upon Stride's killer in the act, would he have hesitated to cut the throat of that person if they posed a threat? If women out alone at night were considered by the ripper to be worthless and fair game, how might he have reacted if one had resisted his advances or angered him in some other way? What if one had tried to pick his pocket? Would he only ever have taken his knife to a woman's throat if the place and time were right for a good old mutilation session?

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          That's all very well and good, but it doesn't mean we can safely rule out the ripper here on the balance of probability. He may have had no intention of mutilating anyone in this particular location, or even at this particular time, but cut Stride's throat for any number of other reasons. After all, her killer had a sharp knife on him and knew how to use it, and he had an unknown motive. Why is the ripper not allowed to use his knife in any situation where another killer might do so? If a witness had come upon Stride's killer in the act, would he have hesitated to cut the throat of that person if they posed a threat? If women out alone at night were considered by the ripper to be worthless and fair game, how might he have reacted if one had resisted his advances or angered him in some other way? What if one had tried to pick his pocket? Would he only ever have taken his knife to a woman's throat if the place and time were right for a good old mutilation session?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          exactly caz, were back to robotman again. in strides case it has all the indications and evidence he cut her throat in a fit of anger and or decided things were a bit too hot to continue at that location and bolted. live to fight another day, so to speak, or hour in this case, which he did with eddowes.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            Therefore the chances of the killer having had no intention of mutilating the Stride, are 96%.
            Did you hear about the midnight rambler?
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              That's all very well and good, but it doesn't mean we can safely rule out the ripper here on the balance of probability.
              I never said or implied it was not a Ripper murder.

              He may have had no intention of mutilating anyone in this particular location, or even at this particular time, but cut Stride's throat for any number of other reasons. After all, her killer had a sharp knife on him and knew how to use it, and he had an unknown motive. Why is the ripper not allowed to use his knife in any situation where another killer might do so? If a witness had come upon Stride's killer in the act, would he have hesitated to cut the throat of that person if they posed a threat? If women out alone at night were considered by the ripper to be worthless and fair game, how might he have reacted if one had resisted his advances or angered him in some other way? What if one had tried to pick his pocket? Would he only ever have taken his knife to a woman's throat if the place and time were right for a good old mutilation session?
              No intention of mutilating anyone = not interrupted

              Interruption is what you (and others) have been arguing for. The moment I put numbers on it, the story changes.

              So why was interruption the story for so long? Because it's a plausible story.

              Plausibility is a trap.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                exactly caz, were back to robotman again.
                No, we're not back to anything.
                I've tried to express interruption as a probability. Doing so does not suggest what I think the murderer of Stride, ought to be doing.

                in strides case it has all the indications and evidence he cut her throat in a fit of anger and or decided things were a bit too hot to continue at that location and bolted.
                So what are all the indications and evidence?
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                  No, we're not back to anything.
                  I've tried to express interruption as a probability. Doing so does not suggest what I think the murderer of Stride, ought to be doing.



                  So what are all the indications and evidence?
                  sigh..

                  Interrupted/ too hot: bs man shouting lipski at IS. an or diemshitz and his cart. men singing in the club, coming and goings.

                  fit of anger: the assault IS witnessed, peaked cap man with stride for a considerable amount of time (frustrated that shes not going easily to a secluded spot).

                  its not rocket science nor are serial killers robots-theyre prone to specific circs-like mood, changing environment, unforseen events.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Ill say Paddy that of the possibilities within the Club staffers, he does strike me as being of interest for this crime. He is returning to the club after taking his date home from the meeting, does he have a second date planned maybe?
                    I've wondered about this too. Wess left and returned, but that was before the event ended.

                    He "couldnt be sure" whether Liz was there when he says he entered the passageway at 12:40, I think that sounds like avoiding the main issue rather than reciting from memory, ...I personally think he must have known one way or the other,
                    If she was there at 12:40, Smith must have gone by no later than 12:35, so he would be back about 1:02 - when he said he was.
                    So when was Fanny last on her doorstep?

                    he says he is afraid of the sight of blood, but "tumbled pell mell" down the stairs to see what had happened when he hears a woman has been murdered in the passageway. If he is afraid of blood, why rush to see some?
                    After I got into the club there was some singing, and after I had been in 20 minutes a man came in and said something about a woman being in the yard. I went into the yard and struck a match, and then I could see that there was blood on the ground. I heard Diemschitz calling for the police, and I ran into the Commercial-road.

                    I dont have any fixed idea of what went down or exactly how, but Lave and Eagle both state they were by the gates at around 12:40, but neither sees anything or anyone not even each other. Not sure I trust those statements, and if Im correct about them being fictional, then what of the 4 witnesses that say they were there at 12:40 over the body?
                    3 witnesses, and 1 of those was Mr Muddle-Head.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                      Because she was. The slitting of the throat on the arteries after strangulation was not all that common, and were definite markers of Jack's work. For that to happen twice in the space of an hour is simply statistically improbable that Stride was not a victim. Lack of post-mortem mutilation due to disturbance remains the best explanation for then and for now.
                      If you wanted to kill someone in that area at that time, might you not use the same MO to muddy the waters - especially if you had an alibi for Nichols & Chapman?
                      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        sigh..

                        Interrupted/ too hot: bs man shouting lipski at IS. an or diemshitz and his cart. men singing in the club, coming and goings.

                        fit of anger: the assault IS witnessed, peaked cap man with stride for a considerable amount of time (frustrated that shes not going easily to a secluded spot).

                        its not rocket science nor are serial killers robots-theyre prone to specific circs-like mood, changing environment, unforseen events.
                        Those things might be reasons for leaving, but they are not evidence that he did leave early.
                        You're confusing cause and effect. Worse still, you place assumption on top of assumption when you talk about a 'fit of anger'.

                        In the case of interruption - as I've already suggested - the chances of this occurring right in the few seconds between cutting the throat and disarranging her clothes, are very low. I don't expect that to bother you though - this is not rocket science, and he ain't a robot!

                        If club members are to be believed, there were no arrivals or departures between 12:40 and Louis at 1:00. Louis didn't see anyone leave, and there was a huge amount of blood loss by the time he and Kozebrodsky are by the body.
                        Alternatively, if you are going to believe the ludicrous story given by Schwartz, why would he kill after having been seen by one witness at close range, and another a little further away?
                        Then having done so, why not continue? The other two men have left the scene, and he's shielded by the darkness of the lane.
                        Perhaps he had a mood-swing, or didn't like the singing?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          Those things might be reasons for leaving, but they are not evidence that he did leave early.
                          You're confusing cause and effect. Worse still, you place assumption on top of assumption when you talk about a 'fit of anger'.

                          In the case of interruption - as I've already suggested - the chances of this occurring right in the few seconds between cutting the throat and disarranging her clothes, are very low. I don't expect that to bother you though - this is not rocket science, and he ain't a robot!

                          If club members are to be believed, there were no arrivals or departures between 12:40 and Louis at 1:00. Louis didn't see anyone leave, and there was a huge amount of blood loss by the time he and Kozebrodsky are by the body.
                          Alternatively, if you are going to believe the ludicrous story given by Schwartz, why would he kill after having been seen by one witness at close range, and another a little further away?
                          Then having done so, why not continue? The other two men have left the scene, and he's shielded by the darkness of the lane.
                          Perhaps he had a mood-swing, or didn't like the singing?
                          ive said many times theres the possibility that what IS witnessed was the actual beginning of the assault and that bs man cut her throat shortly after IS left, her hand instinctively goes to the wound, stemming the flow of blood, bs man bolts, and stride stumbles into the yard toward the voices in the club and perceived help but expires in the yard. it explains all the evidence, and your possibility/interuption /"few seconds" silliness. and the blood amount. btw sherlock her clothes werent "disarranged". quite the opposite.

                          "assumption upon assumption" !?! lol. if you cant see anger in the bs incident, then i cant help you. perhaps they were happily dancing.

                          and im not confusing anything and you constantly invalidate any real rational explanations by showing your bias with stupid statements like "the ludicrous story given by schwartz". im tired of your nonsense and constant clogging of every thread with your never ending posts.
                          why dont you do everyone a favor, and post your theory and ideas in one non cryptic post instead of your posting ad nauseum. its really tiresome.

                          I think you just like to hear yourself talk at this point. in either case im done wasting my time with you.
                          Last edited by Abby Normal; 11-07-2020, 12:32 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Jack waited ~ 6 weeks until Barnett ,Mary Kelly's protector, departed the scene before striking.

                            Strongly suspect BS Man was Stride's.

                            When the coast was clear, Jack offered the cachous which Stride picked out of his palm.
                            Bang.
                            He attacked the artery at the clavicle/sternum area,hence the bruise as explained by Prosector.
                            Forgotten the term,Stride in shock had a death grip on the astringent pills for her bottom lip.
                            Once on the ground,her throat was cut.
                            The unexpected blood flow is explained by her hereditary haemorrhagic disease.

                            Nichols,Chapman and Eddowes had conditions that were of interest to a pathologist.
                            Stride did not.

                            Now which short, effeminate pathologist with an interest in Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza could that be?
                            Especially one who had been treating the three.
                            Would the vicinity of Nichols' murder be a clue?
                            Last edited by DJA; 11-07-2020, 02:29 AM.
                            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                            Comment


                            • As Jack was not sighted on the street,wonder where he was!

                              Click image for larger version  Name:	10_The_Pictorial_News_6_October_1888_Berner_Street.jpg Views:	0 Size:	173.6 KB ID:	745697
                              Last edited by DJA; 11-07-2020, 03:03 AM.
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                I never said or implied it was not a Ripper murder.



                                No intention of mutilating anyone = not interrupted

                                Interruption is what you (and others) have been arguing for. The moment I put numbers on it, the story changes.

                                So why was interruption the story for so long? Because it's a plausible story.

                                Plausibility is a trap.
                                lol.what balderdash. no ...plausibility is not a trap. its the likelihood of something happening. another example of your bonkers reasoning and trying to find the most ridiculous explanation for everything. there. im done with you. good riddance.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X