Stride..a victim?

[caz]

I have been on these boards for quite some time and I have never been aware of any poster saying with absolutely certainty that an interruption took place. No one knows for sure and we will probably never know. Since there is absolutely no requirement to accept or even consider plausibility, why some posters get their panties in a bunch over it is beyond me. If you are someone who wants cold, hard indisputable facts and 100% metaphysical certainly regarding every aspects of this case Ripperology is probably not for you and is sure to disappoint and frustrate. Another hobby choice might be in order.

And let's cool it with the whole label thing. It is quite annoying and does nothing to further discussion.

c.d.

I agree entirely, c.d, and assume your post wasn't addressed to me, but to the one who wants the blame for all the labelling.

It's bad manners to keep going with this nonsense when he is reminded that nobody has insisted on a solution involving the ripper killing Stride, or even intending to mutilate anyone at that location.

All we know for sure is that a man was out that night, who did intend to murder and mutilate a woman, and he achieved that aim a bit later on, just fifteen minutes' walk away from where Stride was found. It would be irresponsible IMHO to rule this man out for the earlier murder, before a decent case has even been made for another individual wanting Stride dead and making it happen, without ever becoming a suspect.

I'm simply not prepared to rule out a man with a proven record of taking a lethal weapon to the throats of defenceless females. I don't think that makes me deserving of any labels.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

I agree entirely, c.d, and assume your post wasn't addressed to me, but to the one who wants the blame for all the labelling.

Your assumption is correct, Caz.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it entirely appropriate that those of the Interruptionist School be labelled, to let them and others know they are not the only game in town.

But you directed that at me?

The suggestion that Amelia took tips from strangers entering the house, to use the otherwise idle basement which still had to be paid for, is a plausible one.

It's entirely baseless.


That space might not have had the polish of The Pink Pussycat, but would have been a simple way of supplementing her income.

So would casual bricklaying but we have no evidence of that either.

Also, that suggestion led to other insights, such as the recent history of the leather apron, and the cooling effect of pouring a pan of cold water onto the victim. The later could have been useful in the debate over time of death, but alas...



I never said it was implausible, but I did 'guestimate' the probability to be 4%

A worthless figure plucked from thin air. At best 50-50. With the murder of Eddowes it would have to be placed higher.

I don't think it's a case of you trying to get at the 'truth' I think your just trying to find new mysteries whether they exist or not. You dismiss the idea of the killer being interrupted because it's plausible?! There's nothing implausible about it therefore it's entirely possible and down to individual interpretation.

[c.d.]

So would casual bricklaying but we have no evidence of that either.

That made me laugh.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it just me or is there a joke there somewhere?

c.d.

Beat me to it c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps it was because Schwartz could not help with the cause of death, and the man he claimed to see manhandling Stride may have left before she was killed by someone else. So his testimony couldn't help to establish the circumstances of her murder and could have been highly misleading.

I too find it perfectly plausible that such a brief confrontation could have happened while nobody else was there to witness it. After all, Schwartz didn't claim to notice anyone around apart from Pipeman, BS Man and the woman. Making it up would have been risky unless he was there to see for himself that the place was deserted at the appropriate time.

Love,

Caz
X

Is it possible that after his encounter with Pipeman he decided to lie low and the police just couldn't find him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have been on these boards for quite some time and I have never been aware of any poster saying with absolutely certainty that an interruption took place. No one knows for sure and we will probably never know. Since there is absolutely no requirement to accept or even consider plausibility, why some posters get their panties in a bunch over it is beyond me. If you are someone who wants cold, hard indisputable facts and 100% metaphysical certainly regarding every aspects of this case Ripperology is probably not for you and is sure to disappoint and frustrate. Another hobby choice might be in order.

And let's cool it with the whole label thing. It is quite annoying and does nothing to further discussion.

c.d.

[DJA]

Herlock,

Schwartz was interviewed by police via an interpreter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

Schwartz was interviewed by police via an interpreter.

Fair point. I'd forgotten that.

Back to the drawing board for me

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

So are you turning Fanny down?

I heard he has to beat it off with a shitty stick.....

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The police did a pathetic job.

Three witnesses were not called to the Inquest. Two living almost next door and Schwartz.

Ask,who were the police protecting.

That's one of the great unanswerable's though, sadly. Schwartz and Fanny seem like absolutely nailed on witnesses, but totally absent. I imagine the reasoning existed somewhere, but is now lost to us. Sinister or otherwise, it's gone.

[Michael W Richards]

Why do you suppose the police failed to work all this out at the time, Michael? If your argument is that Schwartz didn't attend the inquest because his story wasn't considered credible, would the police not have looked into why he might have made it up, and who he could have been protecting? Would that not have been rather crucial to try and establish?

Or did they just give up and focus back on your phantom ripper with no associations with either the club or the victim, helped along by those in cahoots with Schwartz who had cunningly described it as "another" murder?

Love,

Caz
X

Maybe they did Caz, maybe they just couldnt prove it. The only thing that is certain is that Schwartz' story is not considered valuable to the Inquest, which is inconceivable if he was believed. So...since Israel isnt a part of the mix..neither is BSM, nor Pipeman,... which leads right back to where we were. A Man from the International Club premises. Isreals story is the ONLY one that has people other than the young couple and Goldstein on that street from 12:35 until after 1.

[Michael W Richards]

Herlock,

Schwartz was interviewed by police via an interpreter.

Ive read comments that suggest Wess was that man.

[c.d.]

Schwartz' story is not considered valuable to the Inquest

...and neither is Fanny's story if that is your sole criterion.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Maybe they did Caz, maybe they just couldnt prove it. The only thing that is certain is that Schwartz' story is not considered valuable to the Inquest, which is inconceivable if he was believed. So...since Israel isnt a part of the mix..neither is BSM, nor Pipeman,... which leads right back to where we were. A Man from the International Club premises. Isreals story is the ONLY one that has people other than the young couple and Goldstein on that street from 12:35 until after 1.

Well, I'd reiterate, no one knows why Israel wasn't at inquest, but the fact remains, without him, Liz is possibly seen outside the Brickies earlier that night, but nothing else. I suppose we should mention Packer though. Another shaky witness. Strip away the shonky sightings, there's really nothing else. Like Polly, it's an unknown where Liz was, or what she was doing. But what little is known doesn't obviously suggest soliciting for a bed.