Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride..a victim?

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Isnīt it a sad waste of time when posters demand evidence to accept the validity of a suggestion? Just as there is no evidence that Strideīs killer was interrupted, there is no evidence that he was not. So much for demanding evidence. It gets us absolutely nowhere.

    There was seemingly a serial killer at large in the East End of London in the autumn of 1888. This killer seemed to have an agenda of contacting pennyless women with no company out in the open streets during nighttime, to silently subdue them, to cut their throats deeply enough to open up large vessels and to open the victims up and eviscerate them.

    Once we look at the different parameters involved, we can see that Stride ticks many of the boxes. She was a pennyless woman who walked the East End streets in solitude and at night, she was silently subdued and she had her throat cut deep enough to open up a large vessel. If she had had her abdomen cut open, the fewest would be in any doubt about whether she was a Ripper victim or not.

    Recognizing these details and coupling it with the fact that women did not regularly have their throats cut in silent circumstances out in the open streets, the suggestion that she fell prey to the Ripper becomes a very good one. Murder was a not very common thing, rough though the East End was.

    The perhaps most compelling detail in the act of accusation against the Ripper is the fact that Elizabeth Stride was killed on a night when we know that the Ripper was on the prowl. He killed Catehrine Edddowes in Mitre Square around three quarters of an hour after Stride was slain. And the distance between Mitre Square and Berner Street is one that lends itself very well to speculating that it was the same killer. Setting off for Mitre Square, finding another victim, chatting her up and killing her seems to fit the chronological bell spot on.

    Itīs one thing that Strides lack of a cut to the abdomen and ensuing eviscerations is something that tells her apart from the other canonical victims. Itīs an entirely different matter to say that this parameter makes her less likely to be a Riper slaying than a deed by another unidentified killer. Very clearly, although it is not a given thing who cut her, the Ripper MUST be the first hand choice for Stride, given the specific circumstances. If the scant evidence there is tells us something at all about the killers identity, then that is it.
    But there are several other factors which tip the scales in favour of her not being a Ripper victim.

    On another note, the accepted method of killing someone in Victorian times was by throat cutting

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Paul Begg suggests that Schwartz might have given evidence in camera. In the Oct 1st Star interview it's mentioned that Schwartz gave his address but the police withheld it from the Press. Does this point to the police understanding fears that he might have had of reprisals? And does it add weight to the possibility that he might indeed have given evidence at the Inquest in camera?

      Nothing more than conjecture by Paul Begg do you not think that if this did ever happen no one would ever find out about it? In the absence of anything like this being suggested at the time, we must assume that it did not take place. It's another case yet again of creating a false trail which some fall for hook line and sinker!!

      How unlikely does it seem that the police would simply dismiss a witness who claimed to have seen a woman being attacked on the spot where Stride was discovered 20 minutes or so later? None of the other witnesses discounted Schwartz and the police arrested one man on the strength of Schwartz description. The only point that I'm trying to make is how strange it would have been for the police to have discarded a witness like Schwartz.
      We do not know why he was not called, but it is wrong to assume that the contents of his written statement were disregarded. You also have to bear in mind that an inquest is only to determine the cause of death. Had he been called would his statement have thrown any light on that?

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk



      Comment


      • I would think any viable investigation must evaluate what can be learned about the ultimate objectives seen in any prior activities by the same unknown suspect being called "Jack". I dont see much dispute about starting the list with Polly and continuing on with Annie. Logically paired, almost mirror image events with escalated violence. In the case of Annie it is on record that the man who examined her saw no superfluous cuts and a specific target in mind. He cut skillfully. One might say surgical grade, at least experienced with using a knife. The man murdered so he could mutilate the female abdomen. Thats the obvious and medically suggested objective here. He did so in very little time overall, once the victim was in the correct position. On their back, legs spread.

        There is nothing within the Stride evidence that suggest anything other than her killer most probably intended to kill her. Thats all thats there. Why I strongly object to this interruption consideration is because it alters the evidence. Suddenly the murder becomes more than it obviously is. East End violence. It becomes a part of some stream that is joined by other suggested tributaries to become this maniacal mythical murderer spree. The many and again obvious differences in what was done and what was attempted do not go away when imagining tangential storylines with sand foundations.

        Herlock, youve asked what constitutes evidence of an interruption, I would say that for me any physical or circumstantial evidence that suggests incomplete tasks. Even a fleeing man, which Goldstein and his time fit quite nicely actually..had he come from the front door. We have eyewitnesses. We have corroborated witnesses. We have a singular cut and then .....nothing. We have very few people seen on the street between 12:35 and 1am, and we have one eyewitness watching the street continuously for the last 10 minutes of that hour. So technically Fanny would be there if a killer fled, she certainly would have seen Louis arrive...if thats the source of this interruption idea,... had he done so at 1am like he says.

        Im actually a little surprised someone hasnt suggested that scenario. If Louis arrived before 12:45, as 4 witnesses stated, then he may well have interrupted someone. Still got that problem of any evidence at all to support it. On paper it doesnt seem to far a reach. But youd have to acknowledge his early arrival to get there, and acknowledge that the killer didnt leave the property after the killing. Unless he did so before Fanny stood at her door those last 10 minutes. I believe the young couple would have seem someone anyway.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • This is the couple seen by James Brown...

          When the alarm of murder was raised a young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty-minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

          This is another couple...

          From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.
          "We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."


          Across the road...

          A woman living just opposite says that she was waiting up for her husband and listening for his coming, and she heard nothing to arouse her suspicion.

          And Mrs Mortimer...

          I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half past twelve and one o'clock this morning, and I did not notice anything unusual.

          It seems the ladies have Israel Schwartz well and truly nailed, yet they have never been given the respect they deserve.
          Perhaps they weren't in a ideal position, though...

          M. Rombrow is the editor of The Worker's Friend, whose printing office is in the yard. It was just outside the door of this office that the body was found.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            I just had to refresh my memory by reading the Stride section of Paul Begg's The Definitive History. On the subject of Schwartz and the Inquest I'm sure everyone's aware of this but it will bare repeating (I think)

            Anderson to the Home Office:

            'With ref. to yr letter &cc. I have to state that the opinion arrived at in this Dept. upon the evidence of Schwartz at the Inquest in Eliz. Stride's case is that...'

            Paul Begg suggests that Schwartz might have given evidence in camera.
            Other's have made the same proposal, but an inquest is a public event, thats the whole point of an inquest. So I don't see how that works.

            In the Oct 1st Star interview it's mentioned that Schwartz gave his address but the police withheld it from the Press.
            But that's the same for any witness, the police will never give out the name or address of a witness. A similar problem occurred with Hutchinson, the police withheld his name but then he went and identified himself to police, which put them in a difficult position.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              Read the last post I made Caz, you can "rule" in the Ripper all you want...all you need is some evidence? In this case you have a knife as a murder weapon and a throat cut....I know thats not enough for anyone to suggest Jack, so now youd like to include speculative imagination like interruptions. Not havin it.
              You're still not getting this, Michael. What we can't safely do, and what I won't therefore do, on the sheer lack of evidence, is to rule out the active knifeman who, when the opportunity knocked in Buck's Row, Hanbury St, Mitre Square and Miller's Court, was able to mutilate a victim he had just murdered and not get caught.

              You would need all the evidence that is lacking in order to safely rule this man out. Has he an alibi for the Mitre Square murder? Has Eddowes's killer got an alibi for Stride? You don't know. You can't possibly know.

              While you're on the subject of including 'speculative imagination' to try and make sense of these murders, you don't do a bad job of it yourself, with your funny little blackmail theory to take the ripper out of Mitre Square as well as Berner Street.

              Without a shred of evidence, you would have Eddowes killed because she was daft enough to tackle a criminal in the darkness of Mitre Square and attempt to blackmail him. As I posted earlier in another thread, the idea that her facial injuries were done by design to punish her for threatening to snitch on him is nothing more than fanciful speculation, and ignores the fact that she was not physically equipped to threaten a rice pudding, much less demand money from a robber [who would typically carry an offensive weapon] in return for not grassing him up. Was she expecting him to be so intimidated by her tiny defenceless frame that he'd instantly part with the cash and let her toddle off home with it?

              Love,

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


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But there are several other factors which tip the scales in favour of her not being a Ripper victim.

                On another note, the accepted method of killing someone in Victorian times was by throat cutting

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Which are those "several other factors", Trevor? As for "accepted methods" of killing in Victorian times, killers rarely adjust to what is accepted or not. Of course, people have had their throats cut since the first knife was invented, but that does not affect how murder as such was not a common thing in the East End. It was not an everyday matter to find women with slashed throats on the East End streets.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Other's have made the same proposal, but an inquest is a public event, thats the whole point of an inquest. So I don't see how that works.



                  But that's the same for any witness, the police will never give out the name or address of a witness. A similar problem occurred with Hutchinson, the police withheld his name but then he went and identified himself to police, which put them in a difficult position.
                  Thanks Wick. I didn't know about Inquest procedure.
                  Regards

                  Herlock




                  “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                  As night descends upon this fabled street:
                  A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                  The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                  Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                  And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    Which are those "several other factors", Trevor? As for "accepted methods" of killing in Victorian times, killers rarely adjust to what is accepted or not. Of course, people have had their throats cut since the first knife was invented, but that does not affect how murder as such was not a common thing in the East End. It was not an everyday matter to find women with slashed throats on the East End streets.
                    Those factors are there for all to see, you just need to think outside of the box. I will give you a clue there are at least 4

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Those factors are there for all to see, you just need to think outside of the box. I will give you a clue there are at least 4

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      No, Trevor, donīt give me a clue, give me facts. Otherwise, it is there "for all to see" how you are trying to sidestep my question.

                      So letīs hear it, please!

                      Comment


                      • .
                        It seems the ladies have Israel Schwartz well and truly nailed, yet they have never been given the respect they deserve.
                        Perhaps they weren't in a ideal position, though
                        Aren't you being a bit selective here?

                        Mrs Mortimer (The Evening News) said: '....shortly before a quarter to one she heard the measured heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterward she went to the street door...she remained standing there ten minutes...'

                        But PC Smith said that he passed between 12.30 and 12.35. So if she went out after Smith and stood for ten minutes this would have had her back inside for 12.45. Just in time to miss Schwartz.

                        I'll repeat.....where's the issue?
                        Regards

                        Herlock




                        “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                        As night descends upon this fabled street:
                        A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                        The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                        Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                        And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                        Comment


                        • Do we know why Mrs Mortimer wasn't at the Inquest?
                          Regards

                          Herlock




                          “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                          As night descends upon this fabled street:
                          A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                          The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                          Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                          And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                          Comment


                          • She wasn't invited.
                            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                            Comment


                            • .
                              Herlock, youve asked what constitutes evidence of an interruption, I would say that for me any physical or circumstantial evidence that suggests incomplete tasks. Even a fleeing man, which Goldstein and his time fit quite nicely actually..had he come from the front door. We have eyewitnesses. We have corroborated witnesses. We have a singular cut and then .....nothing. We have very few people seen on the street between 12:35 and 1am, and we have one eyewitness watching the street continuously for the last 10 minutes of that hour. So technically Fanny would be there if a killer fled, she certainly would have seen Louis arrive...if thats the source of this interruption idea,... had he done so at 1am like he says
                              I still don't know the kind of evidence that you mean Michael? If something doesn't occur how can we ask for evidence of why it didn't occur in these circumstances? If​​ the killer grabbed her scarf then cut her throat how can we know what he intended next? We can't know because it's impossible but what we do know is that at the relevant time a man pulls onto the exact location on a cart. There's no doubt that interruption is a plausible explanation. It can't not be.
                              Regards

                              Herlock




                              “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                              As night descends upon this fabled street:
                              A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                              The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                              Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                              And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                                She wasn't invited.
                                Its been suggested that Schwartz wasn't called to the Inquest because the police didn't believe his story. Does this mean that the police didn't believe Me Mortimer either? I accept that we've no way of knowing of course.
                                Regards

                                Herlock




                                “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                                As night descends upon this fabled street:
                                A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                                The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                                Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                                And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X