Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • #16
    Why would anyone expect this killer to be able to hang around and mutilate his victims on every occasion, regardless of location and potential witnesses?

    Good point, especially when his being caught would most certainly result in his being hanged. Pretty high stakes.

    And we can't infer his desire or intentions from a lack of mutilations. **** happens.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • #17
      All valid points, and certainly it does point to Stride being killed by JTR.
      However, there is still an element of doubt, and that element of doubt doesnt seem to have been considered back at the time.

      As for the gambling analogy, there is no way I would bet much money on anything regarding this case.

      Regards.

      Comment


      • #18
        Hello Spyglass,

        I don't think the investigation was impacted one way or another by the police assuming Stride was a Ripper victim. Since the police didn't know who the Ripper was no one could be excluded from the investigation.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by c.d. View Post
          Since the police didn't know who the Ripper was no one could be excluded from the investigation.

          c.d.
          True, on a general level. However, there would nevertheless have been a train order. They entertained ideas about what kind of man to look for. Basically, the MacNaghten Memoranda illustrates this quite well. It is not as if the three suspects named are named for factual, caserelated reasons. There are no "was seen close by", "had a bloody knife in his pocket on the murder morning" or "was aquainted with victim X". In effect, the Memoranda is more or less a profiling effort - this is the kind of man we are looking for, sexually deviant/insane, given to violence and with the worst kind of antecedentia.

          Noone could be excluded. But it would take a very long time for the investigation efforts to filter down (or up, to be more to the point) to the seemingly lawful and settled. And the police would have felt confident that they would get their guy before it happened.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 10-21-2020, 04:05 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            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-moterm mutilation due to disturbance remains the best explanation for then and for now.
            If disturbance remains the best explanation, I would presume that supporters of the theory have carefully thought through these points:
            • multiple witnesses report observing that the blood had already reached the side door, when they first saw the body, which was very shortly after Diemschitz arrived home. Therefore, the sound of the pony and cart cannot have been the cause of the interruption.
            • no one reported hearing any screams - soft or otherwise - even the people quite close by in the kitchen, who were near an open window and half-open door. So her 'squealing' does not seem to have been the cause of the interruption.
            • perhaps the killer had a mishap with the knife, and ended up a bit 'saucy' himself? The were no drops of blood leading away from the murder location, so he must have stemmed the flow very quickly. Furthermore, this cannot have been a serious cut, else he would not head off to Aldgate nursing a wound, but the interruption theory says he did go there next. A non-serious cut would not be enough to make him quit, or even notice he had injured himself.
            • Stride left the lodging house with sixpence on her. No money was found on her by Phillips. A street prostitute goes out to make money, not spend it. Where did the money go? Did the killer take it before or after he killed her?
            • multiple club members and a PC stated that Berner St was not a prostitute area. So why would Stride and JtR be on Berner St that night? If she were not prostituting, what is she doing there, and did the killer come out of the club? Is that person (in this scenario) also JtR?
            • if she is considered to have been prostituting, why was Stride dressed as if she were going out? Who gave her the man's scarf? Who bought her the flower? Who paid for her dinner? If she paid for the meal herself, who did she have it with? If someone else, did the jealous boyfriend discover her with another man and end up throwing her onto the pavement. An incident of that nature was reported to the police (no, not that one). What happened to this dinner companion? Was he the man who bought the grapes at Packer's shop? Why did he leave alone, outside the club?

            For me, this is rather like the question about the timing of the Schwartz incident - when exactly did that occur?
            In this case, the big question is; what exactly did the interruption consist of?
            What is the point of believing in interruption, if you cannot answer that question?
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

              In this case, the big question is; what exactly did the interruption consist of?
              What is the point of believing in interruption, if you cannot answer that question?
              The point in believing in an interuption is of course that the other four canonicals had extensive cutting damage to their bodies, combined with eviscerations in three of them. This points to a killer who had that purpose in mind when he killed his victims. Plus we know that in the cases of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, the cut to the neck came first, meaning that IF the killer was interrupted, this damage would be the one most likely to be present on the victim.

              I like your point about how the blood had flowed to the side door when the clubbers first saw Stride (I havenīt checked, but Iīll take your word for it). It certainly seems to tell us that Diemschitz was not the disturber. In combination with how Johnston tells us that the blood had stopped running and was all clotted when he examined the body at around 1.12 - 1.13, it looks kind of bleak for broadshouldered man ...

              Comment


              • #22
                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-moterm mutilation due to disturbance remains the best explanation for then and for now.
                I dont accept that these victims were strangled before their throats were cut it doesn't seem logical for the killer to be armed with a long-bladed knife to go to the trouble of strangling them and then cut their throats after they are already dead.

                The cutting of the throats was a swift method of killing them by a killer who knew how to kill swiftly and silently, and those actions were a prelude to the mutilations that followed.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  The point in believing in an interuption is of course that the other four canonicals had extensive cutting damage to their bodies, combined with eviscerations in three of them. This points to a killer who had that purpose in mind when he killed his victims. Plus we know that in the cases of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, the cut to the neck came first, meaning that IF the killer was interrupted, this damage would be the one most likely to be present on the victim.
                  So interruption is inferred - it's not a theory as such.

                  Interruptionist: My theory is that Stride's killer was interrupted in his work, and fled the scene.
                  Sceptic: Okay, so what is the theory?

                  I like your point about how the blood had flowed to the side door when the clubbers first saw Stride (I havenīt checked, but Iīll take your word for it). It certainly seems to tell us that Diemschitz was not the disturber. In combination with how Johnston tells us that the blood had stopped running and was all clotted when he examined the body at around 1.12 - 1.13, it looks kind of bleak for broadshouldered man ...
                  BS man is having a rough time of it, lately.

                  Regarding the extent of the blood flow, it is mentioned by Kozebrodsky. Blood and noise are covered in this chunk from the MA, Oct 2:

                  Mrs. Deimschitz, the stewardess of the club, has made the following statement:-"Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened. I inquired what was the matter, but all he did was to excitedly ask for a match or candle, as there was a body in the yard. The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard. I at once complied with his request and gave him some matches. He then rushed out into the yard, and I followed him to the doorway, where I remained. Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall. I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed. She was lying on her back with her head against the wall, and the face looked ghastly. I screamed out in fright, and the members of the club, hearing my cries, rushed downstairs in a body out into the yard. When my husband examined the body he found that life, so far as he could tell, was quite extinct. He at once sent for a policeman. He is positive that before entering the yard he did not see any man about the street. It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard. It was, however, very dark at the time, and he might, in consequence, have failed to see any such object on the ground. When the police came we were told that we must not quit the premises, and everybody was at once searched. Nothing was found to occasion suspicion, and the members were eventually allowed to go. At four o'clock the body was removed to the mortuary, and later on in the morning the police washed away the bloodstains from the side of the yard. I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave."

                  Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

                  Julius Minsky, a Polish Jew, and a member of the club, states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock, there were some 20 or 30 members in the club room upstairs. They had finished the evening's discussion, and were amusing themselves with singing. The utmost joviality was prevailing when a member rushed excitedly into the room, and shouted out that the body of a murdered woman had been found in the yard. The singing was at once stopped, and all present rushed downstairs in a state of the utmost alarm into the yard. The first thing he noticed was the pool of blood by the kitchen door, and then glancing up the yard to the spot where Mr. Diemschitz was holding a lighted match in his hand, he noticed the body of a woman stretched out by the side of the wall. He was very much frightened himself, and remained in the doorway. Even from there he could plainly see the terrible gash that had been made in the neck. He had been in the club all night, and, so far as he knew, only one member came in before one o'clock. When the police came up they entered the club, and searched the persons of all present.


                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I dont accept that these victims were strangled before their throats were cut it doesn't seem logical for the killer to be armed with a long-bladed knife to go to the trouble of strangling them and then cut their throats after they are already dead.

                    The cutting of the throats was a swift method of killing them by a killer who knew how to kill swiftly and silently, and those actions were a prelude to the mutilations that followed.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    I agree totally that if the killerīs only aim was to put an end to the lives of his victims, strangling them first and then cutting their throats afterwards would have been illogical.

                    But I think that there is another, very logical alternative possible explanation to what he did.

                    To take a knife to the throat of a person means that - even if you are quick - there is a risk that the victim will cry out.

                    But if you get your hands around the neck of the victim and squeeze it, you decompress it to a degree where no much crying can be done.

                    The latter method is a much more safe one, accoustically speaking. And I believe that this was exactly what the killer wanted - silence. If he was afterwards going to spend five or ten minutes cutting the victim up and taking her womb out, he did not want anybody to overhear when he took the victim down. It would risk to ruin his plan.

                    So why is it that he cut the throats after having strangled or partially strangled his victims? Because he was going to cut them up and evicerate them afterwards, and allowing for the blood to flow out for some little time before he set about the cutting would give him a simpler and less bloody task. If he did not take that precaution, his abdominal explorations would become much harder and he would get blood up to his elbows.

                    So he cuts the throat in an angle that allows for him to direct the splash away from himself, as we can see on the fence in Hanbury Street and on the wall behind Kelly.

                    That is my explanation.
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-22-2020, 10:33 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      So interruption is inferred - it's not a theory as such.

                      Interruptionist: My theory is that Stride's killer was interrupted in his work, and fled the scene.
                      Sceptic: Okay, so what is the theory?

                      I already told you: That the killer was somebody who was into eviscerations, but who was disturbed before he got around to it with Stride.

                      BS man is having a rough time of it, lately.

                      The time gap is a small one if we need another killer. And we know tht he manhandled Stride, if Schwartz is to be believed. He has to be on top of the list of suspects for Stride.

                      Regarding the extent of the blood flow, it is mentioned by Kozebrodsky. Blood and noise are covered in this chunk from the MA, Oct 2:

                      Mrs. Deimschitz, the stewardess of the club, has made the following statement:-"Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened. I inquired what was the matter, but all he did was to excitedly ask for a match or candle, as there was a body in the yard. The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard. I at once complied with his request and gave him some matches. He then rushed out into the yard, and I followed him to the doorway, where I remained. Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall. I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed. She was lying on her back with her head against the wall, and the face looked ghastly. I screamed out in fright, and the members of the club, hearing my cries, rushed downstairs in a body out into the yard. When my husband examined the body he found that life, so far as he could tell, was quite extinct. He at once sent for a policeman. He is positive that before entering the yard he did not see any man about the street. It was just one o'clock when my husband came home. Some twenty minutes previously a member of the club had entered by the side door, but he states that he did not then notice anybody lying prostrate in the yard. It was, however, very dark at the time, and he might, in consequence, have failed to see any such object on the ground. When the police came we were told that we must not quit the premises, and everybody was at once searched. Nothing was found to occasion suspicion, and the members were eventually allowed to go. At four o'clock the body was removed to the mortuary, and later on in the morning the police washed away the bloodstains from the side of the yard. I am positive I did not hear any screams or sound of any kind. Even the singing on the floor above would not have prevented me from hearing them, had there been any. In the yard itself all was as silent as the grave."

                      Mila, the servant at the club, strongly corroborates the statement made by her mistress, and is equally convinced there were no sounds coming from the yard between 20 minutes to one and one o'clock.

                      Julius Minsky, a Polish Jew, and a member of the club, states that at the time when the alarm was raised, just after one o'clock, there were some 20 or 30 members in the club room upstairs. They had finished the evening's discussion, and were amusing themselves with singing. The utmost joviality was prevailing when a member rushed excitedly into the room, and shouted out that the body of a murdered woman had been found in the yard. The singing was at once stopped, and all present rushed downstairs in a state of the utmost alarm into the yard. The first thing he noticed was the pool of blood by the kitchen door, and then glancing up the yard to the spot where Mr. Diemschitz was holding a lighted match in his hand, he noticed the body of a woman stretched out by the side of the wall. He was very much frightened himself, and remained in the doorway. Even from there he could plainly see the terrible gash that had been made in the neck. He had been in the club all night, and, so far as he knew, only one member came in before one o'clock. When the police came up they entered the club, and searched the persons of all present.

                      I checked Diemschitz, and he too says that the blood had reached the kitchen door as the people came out of the club. So it seems to be a confirmed fact.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The night of the so called Double Event three women had their throats cut, 1 of those fatal assaults resulted in an arrest. 1 of those was mutilated post mortem, in a manner reminiscent of 2 previously unsolved pm mutilation murders almost a month earlier, and within 10 days of each other.

                        Thats the summary. Liz Stride is murdered in very much the same way as the 3rd victim of the Double Event night, a single slash across the throat. There is no record that says she was soliciting at the time,....as the first 2 victims a month earlier both were,....there are suggestions that she went out well attired that night....aside from Pollys bonnet there is no indication "preening" might have been part of their routine that night,..there was such evidence in Liz's case,..Liz Stride was sober, neither of the first 2 were clear headed,..1 from booze and the other from illness,..Liz Stride had earned enough for a nights doss before ever leaving her home for the evening, neither of the first 2 women had. Liz Stride was cut a single time across the throat severing 1 artery completely and then she was left untouched, both prior victims were cut twice so deeply that their spines were nicked, severing both major arteries, were laid out flat on the back, with the legs akimbo and the abdomens exposed, both had mutilations on their abdomens and in the second case, an internal, abdominal, female organ was extracted and taken from the scene.

                        Liz Strides murder was characterized by a medical professional as being "perhaps 2 seconds" in length, her scarf being twisted, perhaps cut while falling and the knife then dragged across the throat. Neither of the first 2 victims murders in any way could be characterized as such.

                        This is simply a case of either disinformation in the opinions of the contemporary investigators, just another in a growing number of unsolved murders, or they were guessing about it. In my opinion its just a weak argument and a guess, because I believe only a very few men at that time had any idea of the real unfolding storylines. I also believe that the one who could have saved us all some reading by revealing what he knew, Monroe, is to blame for all these years of arguments due to his silence.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-22-2020, 10:50 AM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          I checked Diemschitz, and he too says that the blood had reached the kitchen door as the people came out of the club. So it seems to be a confirmed fact.
                          So there is much blood on the ground by that point, yet when Spooner arrives she is still bleeding!

                          Baxter: Was any blood coming from the throat?
                          Spooner: Yes; it was still flowing.

                          There must have been a lot of liquid in that gutter.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            So there is much blood on the ground by that point, yet when Spooner arrives she is still bleeding!

                            Baxter: Was any blood coming from the throat?
                            Spooner: Yes; it was still flowing.

                            There must have been a lot of liquid in that gutter.
                            Well it had been raining earlier....

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              So why is it that he cut the throats after having strangled or partially strangled his victims? Because he was going to cut them up and evicerate them afterwards, and allowing for the blood to flow out for some little time before he set about the cutting would give him a simpler and less bloody task. If he did not take that precaution, his abdominal explorations would become much harder and he would get blood up to his elbows.

                              So he cuts the throat in an angle that allows for him to direct the splash away from himself, as we can see on the fence in Hanbury Street and on the wall behind Kelly.

                              That is my explanation.
                              [Star, Sep 9] There is no blood except in the yard corner, and a huge splash on the fence, like the spurt from an artery.

                              Stride was probably killed when on the ground, and right near the wall of the club. So there must have been a lot of blood on that wall, right?

                              DI Reid: I minutely examined the wall near where the body was found, but could find no spots of blood.

                              Why no blood on the wall?
                              It seems to have occurred to both the coroner and others that the body might have been moved after the wound had been inflicted...

                              Baxter: Have you formed any opinion as to whether the people had moved the body before you came?
                              Spooner: No.

                              [IT1001] To all appearances the woman seems to have been taken into the stabling yard, and after having been treated like the former victims, carried out and laid openly in the street.

                              Could it be that the blanket theory ... has legs?
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                So there is much blood on the ground by that point, yet when Spooner arrives she is still bleeding!

                                Baxter: Was any blood coming from the throat?
                                Spooner: Yes; it was still flowing.

                                There must have been a lot of liquid in that gutter.
                                I very much doubt it was still flowing from her neck, I believe that was an exaggeration. Perhaps seeped would have been a better description.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X