Stride..a victim?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Interruptionist?' Come on.

Yeah, I have to agree here. "Come on" pretty much says it all. Let's get real clear. No one is stating with absolute certainty that an interruption took place. To claim or suggest otherwise is disingenuous and pretty much dishonest. All that is being suggested is that an interruption is a very reasonable explanation for why Stride was not mutilated as opposed to say an alien spaceship landing and melting Jack's knife. Don't try to make more out of this.

c.d.

You Plausibilists are so hard to pin down

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Why does this evidence have to be dismissed if someone believes that the Ripper was interrupted in Dutfield's Yard? The inference is that the man seen with Stride might have been her killer. How can any of us dismiss this? We might doubt it but we can't categorically dismiss it.

So this could have been:

Annie and the Ripper.
Annie and a punter who she parted company with sometime after Best.
Annie and a punter who continued drinking together which resulted in him killing her.
A case of mistaken identity.
A lie by Best.

Best's statement is there to be assessed by each of us as individuals like all witnesses. I haven't read all of this thread but are you saying that Stride couldn't have been killed by the Ripper?

If the choice is between dismissing the story as irrelevant to the murder (your 2nd, 4th & 5th options), or supposing the man was her murderer, and therefore likely the Ripper, it is probably going to be dismissed.

And it is dismissed - can't think of anything I've read so far, that posits the man as her killer. Have you?
And why not dismiss this possibility - it would seem unlikely that her murderer would be spending time with her at a pub, then leaving with her 2 hours before that event.

Yet the situation can't be dismissed - it is too unusual, and too suspicious - as close as it is to the time of murder.

[caz]

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.

What? My story hasn't changed with your numbers. You flatter yourself. I haven't been arguing for the ripper being interrupted after he made the fatal cut. There is not enough evidence to suggest that IF he killed Stride, it was ever his intention to mutilate her in that place and time, if at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

Possibly, but then why not simply roll Stride onto her back and slash her abdomen with the murder weapon you just used on her throat, and really make it look like 'another' murder by the same man?

If you couldn't risk hanging around long enough to do that, then neither could any other killer, including the ripper.

However, if you did manage it, the irony would then be that nobody would doubt this was another ripper killing - and we'd all be wrong!

On balance, I think the chances of the ripper attacking more women than he mutilated are greater - because he was only human after all - than the chances of another cut throat out that night, who attacked and murdered a defenceless woman for no more obvious reason than she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the choice is between dismissing the story as irrelevant to the murder (your 2nd, 4th & 5th options), or supposing the man was her murderer, and therefore likely the Ripper, it is probably going to be dismissed.

And it is dismissed - can't think of anything I've read so far, that posits the man as her killer. Have you?
And why not dismiss this possibility - it would seem unlikely that her murderer would be spending time with her at a pub, then leaving with her 2 hours before that event.

Yet the situation can't be dismissed - it is too unusual, and too suspicious - as close as it is to the time of murder.

I don't quite get your point but maybe this is because I haven't read back into the thread? From a personal point of view I don't dismiss anything unless it can be proven to have been false. How do we evaluate Best? If he did see Stride with the man that eventually killed her then I'd be of the opinion that this wasn't the Ripper. It's possible that this guy could have been a punter/associate who arranged to meet up with her later and a violent argument ensued.

[c.d.]

You Plausibilists are so hard to pin down

What is it exactly that you would like from us "Plausibilists?"

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

What? My story hasn't changed with your numbers. You flatter yourself. I haven't been arguing for the ripper being interrupted after he made the fatal cut. There is not enough evidence to suggest that IF he killed Stride, it was ever his intention to mutilate her in that place and time, if at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

What? My story hasn't changed with your numbers. You flatter yourself. I haven't been arguing for the ripper being interrupted after he made the fatal cut. There is not enough evidence to suggest that IF he killed Stride, it was ever his intention to mutilate her in that place and time, if at all.

Love,

Caz
X

I would suppose that your position is that stated at the beginning of #143...

Well, Michael, you know by now that my opinion is that the injuries to Eddowes are neatly and simply explained if Stride's killer was taking out the frustration he felt for not having the guts [ahem] to operate in Dutfield's Yard. Having shown his hand to Stride, but not being comfortable with the location, he killed her with his usual efficiency to stop her making a fuss, then ran off to find a woman he could really go to town on.

If the intention at Dutfield's Yard is to do to Stride what he later does to Eddowes at Mitre Square, then in the broadest sense he has been interrupted, and consequently leaves the yard frustrated.

If you mean there was no specific interruption event, fine, but then instead of something simple like a creaking door, you need to make multiple unprovable assumptions.

'Having shown his hand to Stride' - means what exactly? Do you mean he had indicated his intentions verbally, or was there literally a knife in his hand?
The former would have given Stride time to call out in distress, the later is moments prior to the murder, so there is no distinct showing of hand.

If he were not comfortable with the location, why show his hand, or was that simply to stop her making a fuss?
But if he doesn't show his hand, there is no fuss to make, so he must have shown his hand, in spite of being uncomfortable with the location.
So by showing his hand, he apparently was comfortable with the situation, and thus the only issue could be Stride making a fuss.
If she does make a fuss, then he has been interrupted. On the other hand, if the risk of the fuss is removed by killing her, he has no reason to leave.

Is the man in this scenario, the man seen throwing Stride to the pavement?
If yes, at what point does the showing of the hand commence?
At what point could Stride have called out in distress, including to the Hungarian chap?

Once all this is explained and made sense of, we can then make the further assumption that the killer left frustrated, to make sense of the following murder.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I don't quite get your point but maybe this is because I haven't read back into the thread? From a personal point of view I don't dismiss anything unless it can be proven to have been false. How do we evaluate Best? If he did see Stride with the man that eventually killed her then I'd be of the opinion that this wasn't the Ripper. It's possible that this guy could have been a punter/associate who arranged to meet up with her later and a violent argument ensued.

My point is; you can't see the forest for the trees

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
'Having shown his hand to Stride' - means what exactly? Do you mean he had indicated his intentions verbally, or was there literally a knife in his hand?
The former would have given Stride time to call out in distress, the later is moments prior to the murder, so there is no distinct showing of hand

Can we discount Stride calling out?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would suppose that your position is that stated at the beginning of #143...



If the intention at Dutfield's Yard is to do to Stride what he later does to Eddowes at Mitre Square, then in the broadest sense he has been interrupted, and consequently leaves the yard frustrated.

If you mean there was no specific interruption event, fine, but then instead of something simple like a creaking door, you need to make multiple unprovable assumptions.

'Having shown his hand to Stride' - means what exactly? Do you mean he had indicated his intentions verbally, or was there literally a knife in his hand?
The former would have given Stride time to call out in distress, the later is moments prior to the murder, so there is no distinct showing of hand.

If he were not comfortable with the location, why show his hand, or was that simply to stop her making a fuss?
But if he doesn't show his hand, there is no fuss to make, so he must have shown his hand, in spite of being uncomfortable with the location.
So by showing his hand, he apparently was comfortable with the situation, and thus the only issue could be Stride making a fuss.
If she does make a fuss, then he has been interrupted. On the other hand, if the risk of the fuss is removed by killing her, he has no reason to leave.

Is the man in this scenario, the man seen throwing Stride to the pavement?
If yes, at what point does the showing of the hand commence?
At what point could Stride have called out in distress, including to the Hungarian chap?

Once all this is explained and made sense of, we can then make the further assumption that the killer left frustrated, to make sense of the following murder.

I don't think it's possible to definitively explain anything NBFN. We're doomed to frustration if that's our hope. My own doubt about whether Stride was a victim is based on the location which was surely the riskiest of all locations but I'm still nowhere near to dismissing Stride as a victim. Another throat-cutting, prostitute murder close by and a short time later heavily favours Stride as a ripper murder.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think it's possible to definitively explain anything NBFN. We're doomed to frustration if that's our hope. My own doubt about whether Stride was a victim is based on the location which was surely the riskiest of all locations but I'm still nowhere near to dismissing Stride as a victim. Another throat-cutting, prostitute murder close by and a short time later heavily favours Stride as a ripper murder.

There is always a possibility that 2 separate events happen to coincide Herlock. Kate Eddowes seems to have a rendezvous suggesting that she knew her killer, or that she knew where he would be. That she would just go off after Bishopsgate to do some trawling in the city isnt plausible. There is no evidence that Liz was there to meet someone specific, but its also a possibility. The manner in which Liz Stride has her throat cut and the resulting physical evidence does in no way represent what a Ripper murder was perceived to be. Coincidental timing is quite possible. There were three women who had their throats cut that night, that one was not soliciting doesnt negate that fact. We dont know if the other 2 were or not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is always a possibility that 2 separate events happen to coincide Herlock. Kate Eddowes seems to have a rendezvous suggesting that she knew her killer, or that she knew where he would be. That she would just go off after Bishopsgate to do some trawling in the city isnt plausible. There is no evidence that Liz was there to meet someone specific, but its also a possibility. The manner in which Liz Stride has her throat cut and the resulting physical evidence does in no way represent what a Ripper murder was perceived to be. Coincidental timing is quite possible. There were three women who had their throats cut that night, that one was not soliciting doesnt negate that fact. We dont know if the other 2 were or not.

I wouldn't dispute any of that Michael. Eddowes could have gone to meet someone but perhaps there was someone that we are unaware of that she might have hoped to have borrowed money from? Especially if she wasn't expecting a very warm welcome from Kelly? A few coins might have prevented the 'hiding' that she was expecting to receive?

[caz]

I would suppose that your position is that stated at the beginning of #143...

For the last time, I have no fixed 'position'. IF IF IF IF [blimey, how hard can this be?] Stride was killed by the ripper, then something about her, or himself, or the circumstances, or the place or time, put him off doing his usual thing there, so he didn't do his usual thing there, but simply inflicted a single fatal wound and scarpered. This really couldn't be any simpler to grasp. How many times must he have gone out with his knife at night, in case opportunity knocked, but was unable or unwilling to use it in the way he had in Buck's Row and Hanbury St, and then again in Mitre Square and Miller's Court? Did he score a hit every single time, with every prospective victim he eyed up? Did Peter Sutcliffe? Ted Bundy? Harold Shipman? Fred West? BTK? Did they buggery!

On the other hand, a one-off killer, with no previous experience of dealing a swift and silent death blow - particularly if the motive was personal and Stride could identify him - would have risked leaving her alive to tell the tale by making just the one cut before leaving the scene. Why would he do that? How would a first-timer, working in the dark, know it would be enough to do the trick? Why would he not make further cuts to make absolutely sure?

If the intention at Dutfield's Yard is to do to Stride what he later does to Eddowes at Mitre Square, then in the broadest sense he has been interrupted, and consequently leaves the yard frustrated.

Yes, IF IF IF IF the intention was to mutilate Stride at Dutfield's Yard, where and when she happened to be standing. But it's unknowable. Similarly, he could have left the yard frustrated because he had expected her to play ball and leave the yard with him. If the promise of money didn't move her, and he didn't care for her attitude, his own attitude would hardly have improved, would it?

If you mean there was no specific interruption event, fine, but then instead of something simple like a creaking door, you need to make multiple unprovable assumptions.

Join the club! No pun intended. We all have to make unprovable assumptions, whether it's to put the ripper there, because he wrongly thought Stride would be easy prey, or to put another killer there - someone who wanted Stride dead for some unprovable motive connected to who she was and what she'd done to him.

'Having shown his hand to Stride' - means what exactly? Do you mean he had indicated his intentions verbally, or was there literally a knife in his hand?
The former would have given Stride time to call out in distress, the later is moments prior to the murder, so there is no distinct showing of hand.

It could mean anything. We don't know how a conversation might have gone. If he was expecting Stride to be co-operative, and she was having none of it despite his persistence, she could have made some reference to the recent murders, or threatened to scream for help if he didn't bugger off and stop pestering her. Anything like that might have triggered the red mist in him.

If he were not comfortable with the location, why show his hand, or was that simply to stop her making a fuss?
But if he doesn't show his hand, there is no fuss to make, so he must have shown his hand, in spite of being uncomfortable with the location.
So by showing his hand, he apparently was comfortable with the situation, and thus the only issue could be Stride making a fuss.
If she does make a fuss, then he has been interrupted. On the other hand, if the risk of the fuss is removed by killing her, he has no reason to leave.

Are you serious??

Is the man in this scenario, the man seen throwing Stride to the pavement?

No idea. We don't know for sure if Stride was thrown to the pavement, but if she was, and the ripper didn't do it, then it would suggest that someone else assumed she was there for immoral purposes, in which case she'd have been just the kind of woman the ripper would have assumed he could easily take advantage of.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

I wouldn't dispute any of that Michael. Eddowes could have gone to meet someone but perhaps there was someone that we are unaware of that she might have hoped to have borrowed money from? Especially if she wasn't expecting a very warm welcome from Kelly? A few coins might have prevented the 'hiding' that she was expecting to receive?

Why borrow if you could blackmail? That meeting with whomever that left her fire engine drunk might have been preliminary negotiations.