Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes Andrew, why would a man who loved taking huge risks, take the risk of taking his story to the police?

It would be impossible to kill women in the street in a risk-free way. Risk was unavoidable but the ripper avoided capture and so I'd say that either he was extraordinarily lucky (and he certainly might have had an element of luck) or that he had an inclination to self preservation. He wanted to carry on killing after all.

It goes without saying that there's no evidence for Schwartz as the ripper. I doubt if that will bother you though.

[Trevor Marriott]

And I would say that they donīt have the tipping power to outweigh the many factors in favour of her being a Ripper murder. Plus I would add that I was aware of these factors forty years ago, when I started reading up on the murders. So your advice for me to read up more extensively on the Stride murder was (as expected) totally uncalled for.

Surprise, surprise.

Clearly your response suggests you are not as well informed as you profess to be

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You don't know if they were pretending, that's your assumption. Warren only repeated what Anderson wrote the previous day, but Anderson wasn't directly involved. His conclusion was more likely the result of reading Abberline's report, dated Nov. 1st., where Abberline believes the name 'Lipski' was aimed at Schwartz.
Anderson likely knew Schwartz had given a statement, he must have confused 'statement' with 'testimony'. His words are still not evidence that Schwartz was at the inquest.

So in correspondence with the Home Office, Anderson accidently wrote 'at the inquest', rather than 'in a statement'?
Now this would seem a rather sloppy mistake, especially if the text had been proof read. He was under pressure to be sure.
However, what are the chances that the individual in question just happened to be conspicuous by his absence from the inquest?
This is no minor witness we're talking about. He is possibly the most important witness in the entire case.
Why must Anderson have confused 'statement' with 'testimony'? Why must your assumption be the correct one?

[paul g]

Hi all.
weather stride was a Ripper victim it is conceivable to think we may never know with 100% certainty. I think she was but after all it is only my opinion and my viewpoint.
One hundred plus years after the events we have no idea weather the Ripper ( if you think the ripper killed stride) was interrupted or not .
in one hundred plus years from now it is probably safe to assume that will not have changed.
some think he/she was interrupted some think he wasn’t.
one thing is certain no one will in my opinion ever be able to prove or disprove either side of that argument.
maybe agree to disagree may move the thread on .

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

... which is itÂīs turn may well offer part or all of the explanation to the outcome, right?

Seems unlikely...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

That's a quote from The Star. It continues...

M. Rombrow says that he was in this office all the time, and had there been the noise of any struggle, however slight, he should have heard it. He heard nothing, however, until the steward's coming into the yard.

Which if accurate, makes me wonder where the cart was when Krantz first heard it.

Apparently the Russian secret service had a record for Jacob Rombro, mentioned in this article...
Harry Reeve – The Boxer, The Ripper and The Mutiny in France
It's a quite a long read and a lot of it only tangentially related to the Ripper murders. It says...

Looking over the Hoover Institute’s Okhrana (Russian secret service) records I did find one entry on Ripper witness (and Arbeter Fraint editor) Jacob Rombro in Incoming Dispatches, May 7th 1891. It seems Rombro had entered the yard on Berner Street and observed Elizabeth Stride’s body. He was known as Philip Krantz and testified at Stride’s Inquest.

[Fisherman]

Clearly your response suggests you are not as well informed as you profess to be

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you were an adequate judge of such matters, Trevor, Iīd feel thrashed by now.

Then again ...

[Fisherman]

Seems unlikely...

You really shouldnīt be such a pessimist, Al.

[Trevor Marriott]

You must see the weakness of these points Trevor.A couple border on desperation.

We have a murdered prostitute. "who may have been the subject of a domestic assault

The murder took place outdoors. 50/50 chance of all murders taking place outdoors

It took place within the same small area as the others. No South of the Whitechapel road some distance away

The victim had her throat cut. Common method for killing in Victorian times

It occurred in the early hours. Much earlier than all the other victims

It occurred on a night that we know the ripper was active. But that doesn't prove the same person killed both that night

We have a very plausible possible explanation for the lack of mutilation. A weak explanation

As the mutilation part was the rippers goal its entirely logical that he felt 'unfulfilled.' that's conjecture on your part

Another murder with the worst mutilations yet took place around 40 minutes later. that doesn't prove they were connected both different

That murder was a short walking distance from Berner Street. Not that shorter walk

The killer avoided capture. You have got that one right
.....

It's not even close Trevor. The evidence strongly favours a ripper murder. I'm not saying that it's proven just that the evidence favours it strongly.

take the blinkers off apply some common sense

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

...and you still want to downplay all that unknown in favour of someone stalking street prostitutes....something which you, and others, seem to have the ultimate handle on.

Are you not in favour of 'someone stalking street prostitutes', Michael, in the cases of Nichols and Chapman? Have you got the 'ultimate handle' on who that was, and can say that he left the stage for others to carry on the tradition with Eddowes and Kelly?

Again, throat cutting ladykillers are hardly as rare as you claim...there are 8 more Unsolved "lady" knife attacks in the Unsolved File. I just took the 5 youve solved all by your lonesome out from that group...leaving the majority of throat cutting attacks unsolved and unconnected...unless of course you prefer Fishing.

I dont force anything "onto the stage", I just remind you and others to not take a bow before anything is resolved. Which your obviously reticent to do.

What have I claimed to have 'solved' all by my lonesome? When have I tried to 'take a bow' for things that have not been resolved and almost certainly never will be? Our opinions are all we are left with. I'd have more respect for yours, even the blackmail nonsense, if you at least allowed for alternative possibilities, in the way that I and most other posters do as a matter of course.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

take the blinkers off apply some common sense

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A quality that you continually prove yourself devoid of I'm afraid Trevor. You outlook appears to be that if a suggestion in the case has been around for a long time then it needs to be dismissed no matter what as an 'old established theory' which is the phrase you always use. Of course all ideas should be re-evaluated but they should only be dismissed for good reason. Not just so that the individual can lay claim to be able to see what everyone else has missed.

. that night

We have a very plausible possible explanation for the lack of mutilation. A weak explanation

How the hell is this a weak explanation. A man on a cart pulls onto the exact spot and within 5 or 10 minutes of the murder!!! You can't possibly not see this. You've simply made your mind up that you don't want this to be a ripper murder. There can be no other reason for your opinion. It's entirely plausible. Not proven but plausible and possible (probable even)

...

Then you use phrases like "that's conjecture..." and "that doesn't prove..."

Well what else can we do but conjecture? And if you read my earlier posts I've never said that this is proven. It's about likelihoods and opinion. I'll leave the baseless certainty to you.

....

Then you say that throat cutting was a common method of killing in Victorian times. I'll throw this out to researchers. How many prostitutes (or just women if you like) were murdered by having there throats cut in the Late Victorian Period?

.....

I'd actually be interested to know how certain you are that Stride couldn't have been killed by the ripper?

[caz]

Much like I asked a while back. What constitutes proof of interruption? If he was interrupted, by either external or internal factors, how would that be in evidence?

To reiterate a point, if Jack had a potential victim in his sights, thinking " she'll do nicely", but someone entered the scene at this point, and Jack walked away, would this count as interruption? Would it be easy to prove? Unless Jack was interviewed, no one would know...

Hi Al,

I think we're on a hiding to nothing with this one, because Michael isn't going to entertain a 'Jack' who ever thought "she'll do nicely" about anyone other than Nichols and Chapman, who both obliged by dying at the right time and place for a decent spot of mutilation before he thought it best to show a clean pair of heels.

In the real world, there would have been umpteen other potential victims out there on any given night, who could have caught Jack's eye, without anything coming of it, due to unforeseen circumstances, unwelcome intrusions or even a woman's prerogative to change her mind or dig her own heels in over the "arrangements".

Jack was hardly the kind of chap who respected female whims, or would keep his knife to himself if something or someone hampered his plans. I see no obstacle to him taking it out on Stride if he felt the circs on this occasion were against him, and would not give him free rein to go the whole hog without the real risk of being cornered before he could get safely away.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes Andrew, why would a man who loved taking huge risks, take the risk of taking his story to the police?

Who's Andrew??

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who's Andrew??

I'm not certain but I think that NBFN might be called Andrew?

[Wickerman]

So in correspondence with the Home Office, Anderson accidently wrote 'at the inquest', rather than 'in a statement'?

In a roundabout way, yes.
A Statement is given to police, whereas Testimony is given in a court.
I'm saying he may have assumed what Abberline wrote was from Schwartz's Testimony, not from his Statement.
It really doesn't matter, Schwartz was not in court, we can debate 'till the cows come home any reason why, it still doesn't change the fact he did not appear in court.

Now this would seem a rather sloppy mistake, especially if the text had been proof read. He was under pressure to be sure.

Sloppy?, like George Oldfield's handling of the Yorkshire Ripper inquiry?
Lets face it, it happens.
Anderson made his comment a full month after the murder.