Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    That's the thing though, there isn't 'evidence', because an interruption wouldn't leave physical evidence. Without the killer actually stating the fact, no one knows.

    The lack of evidence cannot, or at least should not, be taken as proof that interruption couldn't have happened. It's a flawed argument.

    The interruption theory rests on Louis' arrival, or that's certainly long been the accepted case. That can be argued, absolutely. Other times, witnesses, yes, we can create a different picture. But just saying 'prove it' when looking at an interruption isn't good enough. It's fundamentally unprovable without knowing the killer and his actions, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

    Well, that's how I see it.
    Ive never specifically said that an interruption didnt happen. I have said repeatedly there is nothing within the known evidence to use in a supporting argument for one. Therefore, the point is moot. This Jack fellow acted swiftly. He moved from subdue to kill to cut in a very short time. He must have arranged the body for his field surgeries quickly as well. If Annie is the pinnacle for the killer, then its possible he could do all that to a victim within 1/2 hour. Maybe less. The very least we should see is some effort made to begin that process, and we dont.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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.
      Originally posted by caz View Post

      Nail on the head, Herlock.
      Unsolvabilists have got it so easy - they just keep banging away with their despondent negativity
      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post



        Unsolvabilists have got it so easy - they just keep banging away with their despondent negativity
        For 'negativity' insert 'realiy.' For 'despondant' insert 'cautious.'

        ​​​​​Re-examining the case or aspects of the case is no guarantee of getting a result that can't be disputed. Seeing sinister motives around every corner or behind every disputed piece of testimony just takes us further and further down a conspiracy theorist rabbit hole. Every avenue should be explored but without getting carried away.

        If I'm an 'unsolvablist' (which I don't particularly think that I am) then it's because the likeliest outcome by far is that the case will never be solved to the satisfaction of anything close to a majority. Im not saying that it won't be, just that it's unlikely imo.

        So for 'unsolvablist'' insert 'realist.'
        Regards

        Herlock



        Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          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!
          Okay I get it. You're not an Interruptionist, you're a Circumstancialist - but who isn't?

          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?
          That seems a reasonable argument.

          Dr Phillips: I have seen several self-inflicted wounds more extensive than this one, but then they have not divided the carotid artery. You will see by that, as in the other cases, there appears to have been a knowledge where to cut the throat.

          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?
          Promise of money? Don't the punters have to pay before receiving the service?

          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.
          A one man operation, is another assumption.

          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.
          That assumes he's a triggerable type. I don't think he was.

          Are you serious??
          Apparently

          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.
          Do you think she was there for immoral purposes?
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            For 'negativity' insert 'reality'
            How much 'reality' would you like me to insert?
            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

            Comment


            • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              And just so we are clear -- it was BTK himself who stated that a telephone call scared him off.

              c.d.
              If nobody answered the phone, would there still have been a record of the call, or who tried to make it? A genuine question.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                That's the thing though, there isn't 'evidence', because an interruption wouldn't leave physical evidence. Without the killer actually stating the fact, no one knows.

                The lack of evidence cannot, or at least should not, be taken as proof that interruption couldn't have happened. It's a flawed argument.

                The interruption theory rests on Louis' arrival, or that's certainly long been the accepted case. That can be argued, absolutely. Other times, witnesses, yes, we can create a different picture. But just saying 'prove it' when looking at an interruption isn't good enough. It's fundamentally unprovable without knowing the killer and his actions, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

                Well, that's how I see it.
                I agree, Al. There was a killer. He killed Stride for no apparent reason, and no witness was there to see him doing it, or to see him leaving the scene afterwards. It stands to reason that whoever did it made himself scarce before anyone could find him there with his victim. That doesn't rule out anyone who was out that night, armed with a lethal blade, so that has to include the man who had cut female throats before and would do so again.

                The police were not complete idiots in 1888, and investigated each case individually, looking into any known male associate of the victim who had an opportunity and a possible motive for wanting her dead. The last thing they needed was a string of unsolved murders on their books, and the easiest ones to clear up were always going to be those with a known connection between a victim and her killer. So I very much doubt they found any grounds for suspecting Michael Kidney in Stride's case, for example, or Joe Barnett in Kelly's case, despite investigating the possibility that these were domestic in nature and therefore much easier to solve.

                Even with modern forensics, the most difficult murder cases to crack are those where the killer has no connection with his victim, and there is no recognisable motive for the crime. In 1888, once such a killer had put any distance between himself and his victim, there would have been very little chance of connecting him back to her, leaving another unsolved case to grow stone cold in a relatively short time. However, when the killer was someone who was known to his victim, the chances of him becoming a suspect in the course of police enquiries must have been pretty good, regardless of what evidence there was to take it further. It's remarkable that if Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were not killed by a lone maniac, but by men they knew, that nobody remained under suspicion for long, if at all.

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  If nobody answered the phone, would there still have been a record of the call, or who tried to make it? A genuine question.
                  Yes, unanswered calls are still recorded and logged by the connection type. The same kind of technology thats now on your smart phone indicating Missed Calls.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                    Dr Phillips: I have seen several self-inflicted wounds more extensive than this one, but then they have not divided the carotid artery. You will see by that, as in the other cases, there appears to have been a knowledge where to cut the throat.
                    To me, that indicates a killer who knew where to cut Stride's throat, even in the darkness, to inflict a fatal wound. Not someone known to her, who had never cut a throat before, and just crossed his fingers that she wouldn't live long enough to tell the tale.

                    Promise of money? Don't the punters have to pay before receiving the service?
                    But in my suggested scenario, the promise would have been that if Stride agreed to leave the yard with him and go somewhere more private, he would pay her before receiving her services there. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.

                    That assumes he's a triggerable type. I don't think he was.
                    But how can anyone possibly know either way? Are violent killers excused a breaking point, which would be reached if things didn't go their way?

                    Do you think she was there for immoral purposes?
                    I have no idea why she was there. But her killer may have assumed the reason and she may have died as a result - whoever he was.

                    Love,

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


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      I think Kidney did attack Stride that night. People, Oct 7:

                      The police authorities who have the inquiries with respect to the murders in hand, have received a statement with regard to the murder in Berner street that a man, aged between 35 and 40 years, and of fair complexion, was seen to throw the murdered woman to the ground, but that it being thought by the person who witnessed this that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, no notice was taken of it.

                      Just not on Berner street. Kidney was about 36 at the time.

                      Similar info was printed in other papers, possibly owing to a leak from the Leman street police.
                      The Star's description of the witnessing:

                      Those who saw it thought that it was a man and his wife quarrelling, and no notice was taken of it.

                      An Interruptionist confronted with this, has no choice but to explain away or ignore.
                      Indeed and the police may indeed have been all over Kidney as a suspect but 'being all over him as a suspect' wouldn't necessarily result in sufficient evidence to charge. On many occasions I had young cops say "but I know it was him, sarge!" when I refuse charged a prisoner. Knowing isn't enough; you have to prove it.
                      "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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Can we discount Stride calling out?
                        If Schwartz's account is accepted she did just that - she screamed - three times but not very loudly.
                        "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


                        • Again (if the Schwartz account is accepted) we can see an interruption if in fact what he saw was the beginning of a JtR attack. In that scenario he was the interruption - not Diemschutz who arrived some minutes later and after the deed was done.

                          If you argue for an interrupted JtR attack, why go with Diemschutz rather than Schwartz?
                          Last edited by Bridewell; 11-11-2020, 09:22 PM.
                          "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


                          • I still find it hard to believe that the ripper would have drawn attention to himself by attacking a victim in that way.
                            Regards

                            Herlock



                            Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                              Again (if the Schwartz account is accepted) we can see an interruption if in fact what he saw was the beginning of a JtR attack. In that scenario he was the interruption - not Diemschutz who arrived some minutes later and after the deed was done.

                              If you argue for an interrupted JtR attack, why go with Diemschutz rather than Schwartz?
                              Stride was being pulled away from the yard.

                              We seek someone who was in the yard.

                              Pretty much leaves Eagle or Diemschutz.
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                                That's the thing though, there isn't 'evidence', because an interruption wouldn't leave physical evidence. Without the killer actually stating the fact, no one knows.

                                The lack of evidence cannot, or at least should not, be taken as proof that interruption couldn't have happened. It's a flawed argument.

                                The interruption theory rests on Louis' arrival, or that's certainly long been the accepted case. That can be argued, absolutely. Other times, witnesses, yes, we can create a different picture. But just saying 'prove it' when looking at an interruption isn't good enough. It's fundamentally unprovable without knowing the killer and his actions, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

                                Well, that's how I see it.
                                Is this evidence for interruption?

                                Llewellyn (Nichols): On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence.

                                Phillips (Chapman): The throat had been severed. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand. There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck.

                                Baxter (Stride): Is there any similarity between Chapman's case and this case?
                                Phillips: There is a very great dissimilarity. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an apparent attempt to separate the bones.

                                Brown (Eddowes): The throat was cut, of course, to the extent of about six or seven inches. The superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half behind the lobe of the left ear, and about two and a half inches below the ear, and it extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear. The sterno-mastoid muscle was divided, and the large vessels of the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed at the middle of the cricoid cartilage. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking the vertebral cartilage. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The left carotid artery had a pin-hole opening, and the left jugular vein was opened to the extent of an inch and a half. The anterior fibres of the sterno-mastoid were cut to the extent of half an inch. The cause of death was hæmorrhage from the left carotid artery.

                                If yes, then in how many seconds after the interruption, would this not have been true?...

                                Lamb: Her clothes were not disturbed. No part of her legs was visible, and the boots could scarcely be seen excepting the soles. She looked as if she had lain quietly down.
                                Last edited by NotBlamedForNothing; 11-12-2020, 12:40 AM.
                                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X