Stride..a victim?

[FrankO]

Abraham Heshburg apparently heard a whistle before Lamb arrived, also...

[I]I was one of those who first saw the murdered woman. It was about a quarter to 1 o'clock, I should think, when I heard a policeman's whistle blown, and came down to see what was the matter in the gateway.

There is no way Lamb would be letting anyone get that close to the victim, if he were there to stop them.
So who blew the whistle?
Could it have been someone from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee?

It could have been anyone, NBFN, it's just that there's no evidence of anybody else blowing a whistle.

He does...

When I returned a man that we met in Grove-street, and who came back with us, took hold of the head, and as he lifted it up I first saw the wound in the throat. At the very same time Eagle and the constable arrived.

In effect, Diemschitz claimed two pairs of events occurred at exactly the same time - clock/cart, Spooner/Lamb.

I think the newspapers were responsible for the first pair, which simply couldn't have taken place at the exact same time; the second could have, though, although Diemshutz may have been mistaken (which would be anything particularly suspicous)

Here's another one for the timeline, from Lloyds Weekly News, Sep 30:

Dr. Phillips was sent for, who came at 1.30 in a cab.

Cheers, I'll have a look at that one.

[Michael W Richards]

Im wondering whether the so called cart and horse Fanny thought she heard a few minutes after going to bed was actually the bootsteps of a few men. Maybe Johnson and the constable?

Sounds can be easily misinterpreted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does anyone else feel threatened by my suggestion?

Please don’t flatter yourself that your brilliant insights are somehow a threat to us lesser minds. I’ll remind you again, I have no theory to propound or uphold. I’ve also expressed my own doubts about whether Stride was a ripper victim based on the chosen location so I don’t see how I can be accused of being dogmatically pro-interruption. I also know that different sources can give varied reports and that the Press can also make errors or exaggerate. I also know that the majority of those that lived in the area wouldn’t have owned watches or clocks which can often throw their accuracy into question and that a few minutes here and there can easily accounted for by this.

You, on the other hand, take a different approach. You see every error as proof that someone was lying. That every slight discrepancy indicates that someone is hiding something. You appear like being the ‘left field thinker’ the one that sees more than the boring crowd do. Common sense, calm judgment and reason tell us that there was no mystery here. A serial killer was operating in the area killing prostitutes with throat cutting and mutilation. This wasn’t the common occurrence as some would have us believe and so this inevitably and correctly pushes us toward to suggestion that Stride was killed by this man. Is there anything, any single, solitary fact that eliminates the suggestion that the killer might have been interrupted? Categorically no there isn’t. Is there evidence of someone being there at the time to have interrupted the killer? Well would you credit it? Yes there is.

Its like being on one of those Forums where people suggest that JFK was shot by his own driver or that the killer used a loaded umbrella. So I’ll stay Mr Boring I’m afraid. No leaps of faith; no opinions stated as facts; a definitely no conspiracy theorist methods.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I noted that interruption word again.

The evidence such as it is suggests a very low trafficked street in that last half hour. Anyone about would have been noticed by Fanny popping in and out from the door. She saw the young couple, she spoke with them afterward. She also saw black bag guy, who Goldstein later claims to be. The last legitimate sighting of Liz on the street is by a police officer. She will likely be cut within the next 10 or 15 minutes. Where does she go? She is not seen..so, where is she? If she is in the passageway isnt it far more likely that her killer was already there? There neednt be street traffic introduced that no-one else can substantiate. You talk of simpler explanations for a 2 second murder, I am all aboard with that, so lets not clutter the table with ideas that cannot be validated. 4 accounts, all from men who did not make a living from the club and 1 who had nothing to do with the club or its agendas. A street witness for 30% of that period continuous observance, and the time in sporadic checks at the door. Simple Herlock. There was no-one but the young couple and If we believe him Goldstein who stated he walked past. Liz out of sight at around 12:36, claims by 4 people that within 5 minutes she would be lying there bleeding out.

I don’t believe that she was in and out. It’s an invention. She never said it any any version.

And I’ll say it for the thousandth time, if Smith was correct on his timing and the odds are heavily in favour of him being so, then Fanny was inside by 12.45 or just before which explains why she missed Schwartz therefore makes far more sense than Schwartz making up this story.

And these witnesses you keep quotes were obviously mistaken. Spooner got there before Lamb for eg.

Eagle doesnt even see Lave or vice versa. Strike 1.

Not even close. They could have missed each other by seconds.

The fact that no other people were seen in that area at that time but the aforementioned. Strike 2. Liz is killed in 2 seconds and left to bleed out. We have no idea how long he would have had undisturbed, but there is no evidence that he had any further intentions.

And we have absolutely no evidence that he didn’t. Nothing can be read into the lack of mutilation. It may not have been the ripper or it may have been.

Polar Opposite behavior compared to Jack. Strike 3. You can have a pocket strike with Israel, but you dont need one. He wasnt considered viable.

Nope again. If you are calling the fact that he didn’t appear at the Inquest as proof then it’s not. There could have been another reason for him not attending. And why did the police arrest someone on the strength of what he’d told them if they’d dismissed him?

The club would do damage control and that usually is an immediate response to a situation. Not a well considered one, with consultation and time to digest the options. The woman is there, they need to report this immediately, and they have to make sure that the perception was not that the club had a loose cannon in the flock that night. They...likely Louis and Eagle, decide whats best, who should go for help and which way, what everyone saw of this...nothing....and try and manage the small crowd gathering now. Not let it bulge out into the street.

And they come up with this plan; tell everyone about it so as not say the wrong thing, all in the space of around 15 minutes. And they’re still left with a body in their own yard; a potential killer seen pulling the woman into that yard; and the potential killer hurling anti-Semitic insults outside a Jewish Club. Is this likely? Not to me.

They used this notoriety to sell glimpses of the murder spot in the following days.

I see no evidence of any kind of plan here I’m afraid. Just a few understandable discrepancies which can be explained calmly and reasonably and which fit the facts.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Baxter: Had you noticed any man or woman in Berner-street when you were there before?
Smith: Yes, talking together.
Baxter: Was the woman anything like the deceased?
Smith: Yes. I saw her face, and I think the body at the mortuary is that of the same woman.
Baxter: Are you certain?
Smith: I feel certain. She stood on the pavement a few yards from where the body was found, but on the opposite side of the street.
Baxter: Did you look at the man at all?
Smith: Yes. He had a parcel wrapped in a newspaper in his hand. The parcel was about 18in. long and 6in. to 8in. broad.
…
Baxter: Did you see the man's face?
Smith: He had no whiskers, but I did not notice him much. I should say he was twenty-eight years of age. He was of respectable appearance, but I could not state what he was. The woman had a flower in her breast. It rained very little after eleven o'clock. There were but few about in the bye streets. When I saw the body at the mortuary I recognised it at once.

Pall Mall Gazette, November 14:

WHAT IS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT?

A paragraph in the morning papers states that the police have received from Mr. Samuel Osborne, wire worker, 20, Garden row, London road, a statement to the effect that he was walking along St. Paul's churchyard yesterday behind a respectably dressed man, when a parcel, wrapped in a newspaper, fell from the man's coat. Osborne told him that he had dropped something; but the man denied that the parcel belonged to him. Osborne picked up the parcel, and found that it contained a knife, having a peculiarly shaped handle and a thick blade, six or seven inches long, with stains upon it resembling blood. The parcel also contained a brown kid glove, smeared with similar stains on both sides. Osborne found a constable, and together they searched for the mysterious individual, but without success. The parcel, says the paragraph, was handed to the City police authorities, "who, however, attach no importance to the matter." What on earth could be more important, after the statement made by the man Hutchinson and quoted above?

The reason for the City police apparently not attaching any importance to the matter, is found in the Star, also Nov 14:

The police have received from Mr. Samuel Osborne, wireworker, 20, Garden-row, London-road, a statement to the effect that he was walking along St. Paul's Churchyard yesterday behind a respectably-dressed man, when a parcel wrapped in a newspaper fell from the man's coat. Osborne told him that he had dropped something, but the man denied the parcel belonged to him. Osborne picked up the parcel and found that it contained A KNIFE WITH A PECULIARLY SHAPED HANDLE, and a thick blade 6in. or 7in. long, with stains upon it resembling blood; the parcel also contained a brown kid glove, smeared with similar stains on both sides. Osborne found a constable, and together they searched for the mysterious individual, but without success. The parcel was handed over to the City police authorities, who, however, attach not the slightest importance to the matter, as the knife proved to be a table knife, eaten with rust, and so blunt that it could not possibly have been used in connection with the late murders.

One wonders how truthful the City police might have been about this.
How many table knife's in 1888 had a 165mm blade, and with a peculiarly shaped handle?
Furthermore, how many respectably dressed men would find it necessary to a carry about a blunt, rusty table knife in a parcel in their coat, and then deny the parcel was theirs, when it fell to the ground?

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n747582]

I see no evidence of any kind of plan here I’m afraid. Just a few understandable discrepancies which can be explained calmly and reasonably and which fit the facts.


[QUOTE]

No, you apparently saw a situation that requires a choice between the majority of corroborated witness accounts and the individual unsubstantiated or validated ones. You choose the latter. Thats fine, now that thats established we need not discuss it further. You established a position without any solid ground. Ok.

Mine is built on a foundation supported by 4 pillars and overseen by another.

I understand that to have this Ripper fellow involved here requires something extraordinary...like 4 witnesses that are all wrong even though they all give the same details, like must-have-missed events claimed by individuals to be preferable to contradictory statements, like people just not seeing each other while in the same place at the same time,....then he strikes again later, he does Rip this time, but the scene is also staged like a ballet...with the entrances and exits timed just so for effect. Was this ballet interrupted in Berner Street, well....you would have us believe that. But the truth is far simpler, there is no evidence of one therefore incorporating it into a grander theory is useless. Liz Stride likely pissed off a thug then tried to walk away, he grabbed her scarf from behind and in 2 seconds acted impulsively. Not a spooky Ripper dude at all...just some thug with a temper or even good sense ruined by booze.

I have it relatively easy when it comes to what evidence I must commit to. I dont have any agenda. It has to be useful, it has to be secondhand verified and it has to make sense logically and tangibly. Im not trying to find something in the evidence and ruling out what doesnt fit with that. Im not forced to suggest actions that have no foundation or support, just because they make things fit better for my preconceptions. I dont expect Jack...I look for Jack. And I see a dead woman who in 2 seconds was killed. No evidence at all a mutilator was there.

Thats why its so easy. Your just making it harder. Just follow the evidence instead.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Its like being on one of those Forums where people suggest that JFK was shot by his own driver or that the killer used a loaded umbrella.

JFK - now wasn't he the dude that had Marilyn Monroe killed?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I see no evidence of any kind of plan here I’m afraid. Just a few understandable discrepancies which can be explained calmly and reasonably and which fit the facts.

Fit the facts, or the faith?

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n747584][QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n747582]

I see no evidence of any kind of plan here I’m afraid. Just a few understandable discrepancies which can be explained calmly and reasonably and which fit the facts.

No, you apparently saw a situation that requires a choice between the majority of corroborated witness accounts and the individual unsubstantiated or validated ones. You choose the latter. Thats fine, now that thats established we need not discuss it further. You established a position without any solid ground. Ok.

Mine is built on a foundation supported by 4 pillars and overseen by another.

I understand that to have this Ripper fellow involved here requires something extraordinary...like 4 witnesses that are all wrong even though they all give the same details, like must-have-missed events claimed by individuals to be preferable to contradictory statements, like people just not seeing each other while in the same place at the same time,....then he strikes again later, he does Rip this time, but the scene is also staged like a ballet...with the entrances and exits timed just so for effect. Was this ballet interrupted in Berner Street, well....you would have us believe that. But the truth is far simpler, there is no evidence of one therefore incorporating it into a grander theory is useless. Liz Stride likely pissed off a thug then tried to walk away, he grabbed her scarf from behind and in 2 seconds acted impulsively. Not a spooky Ripper dude at all...just some thug with a temper or even good sense ruined by booze.

I have it relatively easy when it comes to what evidence I must commit to. I dont have any agenda. It has to be useful, it has to be secondhand verified and it has to make sense logically and tangibly. Im not trying to find something in the evidence and ruling out what doesnt fit with that. Im not forced to suggest actions that have no foundation or support, just because they make things fit better for my preconceptions. I dont expect Jack...I look for Jack. And I see a dead woman who in 2 seconds was killed. No evidence at all a mutilator was there.

Thats why its so easy. Your just making it harder. Just follow the evidence instead.

You have very fallible witnesses which you assume to be reliable. Your focusing on the word ‘precisely’ in one reporters version of what Diemschutz said is desperate stuff Michael. Surely you can see that? Ignore that, and we most certainly should, and we have Diemschutz telling us that he passed the clock at 1.00 on the way to the yard. Mortimer heard a horse and cart at just that time. Why? Because that’s undoubtedly the time that he got there.

The other ‘witnesses’ are hardly convincing are they? Not by any stretch. Pillars built on a quicksand of imagination I’m afraid.

........

You say that you don’t have an agenda? But you have a theory to defend. The motive for your proposed plan/cover-up doesn't hold together by any stretch of the imagination.

Purpose - to draw attention away from the club; to protect its reputation and so prevent the police from closing it down.

Achievement - a body still in the yard of their club. A confrontation directly outside of the club. A potential killer apparently trying to pull the victim into the yard of that club. An anti-Semitic insult outside a Jewish club.

Could this plan have been less effective?

..........

This ‘ripper fellow?. The old multiple killers fantasy. Ok. ‘Staged like a ballet’ because a killer hides in shadows or gets away before a police man arrives? Of course the killer couldn't have had a bit of good fortune? Of course not. The rules of the conspiracy game don’t allow for that. How many unsolved murders do the police currently have that could be marked down to conspiracy by employing that kind of thinking. I’d go for Occam’s Razor. It may not be as exciting as a conspiracy but it’s far, far more likely to be correct.

........

Your reliant on fallible witnesses most of whom played, at best, a tangential role in the case. There’s zero evidence for a cover-up but none happened. Was she killed by the ripper? Very probably but there exists a possibility that she wasn’t. We cannot prove either way. Can we prove that the killer wasn’t interrupted? Of course we can’t and everyone knows it.

[Michael W Richards]

I think Herlock if we are talking plainly, it is the Ripper enthusiasts who most often manipulate witnesses veracity and nullify accounts that do no correspond to the overlying premise...that only 1 killer in Whitechapel worked from late August to mid November. Presumably thats when the rest of them came back out I suppose...1 even killing just like that Ripper fellow the following year. Surely he couldnt be responsible for a Canonical murder as well...since Alice matches the pattern that Liz Strides murder dramatically deviates from? So... where were the other violent men during this time? Hopping? Where was Alices killer..was she his first? Can you say that Alice doesnt belong with a Canonical Group but Liz Stride does? On what basis..that you and others have decided he just quits after Mary?

The most enduring and long lasting unproven theory is that one man killed Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate and Mary. So my more recent suggestion that 1 man killed 2, perhaps 3, of the fabled Canonical Five is just in its infancy in comparison. Lets see how it pans out over time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Herlock if we are talking plainly, it is the Ripper enthusiasts who most often manipulate witnesses veracity and nullify accounts that do no correspond to the overlying premise...that only 1 killer in Whitechapel worked from late August to mid November. Presumably thats when the rest of them came back out I suppose...1 even killing just like that Ripper fellow the following year. Surely he couldnt be responsible for a Canonical murder as well...since Alice matches the pattern that Liz Strides murder dramatically deviates from? So... where were the other violent men during this time? Hopping? Where was Alices killer..was she his first? Can you say that Alice doesnt belong with a Canonical Group but Liz Stride does? On what basis..that you and others have decided he just quits after Mary?

The most enduring and long lasting unproven theory is that one man killed Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate and Mary. So my more recent suggestion that 1 man killed 2, perhaps 3, of the fabled Canonical Five is just in its infancy in comparison. Lets see how it pans out over time.

I don't know how many he killed Michael. And you're right of course in that we can't prove who was or wasn't a victim. We never will. It's down to individual interpretation. As I've said it's quite possible that Stride wasn't a victim. Tabram and Mackenzie might have been...who knows. There can be almost no doubt about Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly though imo. Fisherman believes that the Ripper was also responsible for the Torso Murders and, whilst there doesn't appear to be general agreement with the theory, he's certainly not alone in (and maybe more will agree after his book comes out.) So many unknowns.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know how many he killed Michael. And you're right of course in that we can't prove who was or wasn't a victim. We never will. It's down to individual interpretation. As I've said it's quite possible that Stride wasn't a victim. Tabram and Mackenzie might have been...who knows. There can be almost no doubt about Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly though imo. Fisherman believes that the Ripper was also responsible for the Torso Murders and, whilst there doesn't appear to be general agreement with the theory, he's certainly not alone in (and maybe more will agree after his book comes out.) So many unknowns.

I realize that connecting any dots requires a leap of faith to some extent. Its not going to ever be black and white on the page, if anything earthshaking does not come from research into these crimes. The only factor that for me is essential to find in a series of murders is Motive. If he just kills because he feels compelled to do so, if he dismembers,...it is the result of a core Motivation for him. In the case of Annie Chapman, which to me represents the kill that most exposed the killer by the specificities shown, the killer cut Annie is such a way that facilitated accessing and taking exactly what he sought all along. Murder alone was not the Motive, it was a step towards a goal. He achieved his goal. Despite the precarious environment...the sun beginning to rise, 17 people in that house of which some presumably would be readying themselves for work. Windows of neighbors looking down into that yard. We dont know if he even closed the house door when he killed and cut. He was focused.

Liz Strides killer had 2 seconds of very poor judgement likely due to anger or booze or both. There is no evident Motive beyond inflicting harm.

[Michael W Richards]

IF Liz Stride could be expunged from the Group of Five, what new perspectives might be gained? Removing the increase in hostilities as a result of "interruptions" argument, how might Kates new injuries then be explained.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I realize that connecting any dots requires a leap of faith to some extent. Its not going to ever be black and white on the page, if anything earthshaking does not come from research into these crimes. The only factor that for me is essential to find in a series of murders is Motive. If he just kills because he feels compelled to do so, if he dismembers,...it is the result of a core Motivation for him. In the case of Annie Chapman, which to me represents the kill that most exposed the killer by the specificities shown, the killer cut Annie is such a way that facilitated accessing and taking exactly what he sought all along. Murder alone was not the Motive, it was a step towards a goal. He achieved his goal. Despite the precarious environment...the sun beginning to rise, 17 people in that house of which some presumably would be readying themselves for work. Windows of neighbors looking down into that yard. We dont know if he even closed the house door when he killed and cut. He was focused.

Liz Strides killer had 2 seconds of very poor judgement likely due to anger or booze or both. There is no evident Motive beyond inflicting harm.

We can’t deduce any further motive based purely on the throat-cutting but, as there’s a possibility of the killer being interrupted (which I know that you don’t accept,) further motive remains an unknown. All that we can say is that this murder and throat-cutting of a prostitute occurred within the time period of a series of throat-cutting prostitute murders which were hardly an everyday occurrence and that were within a small geographical location. And that there was another murder with mutilation less than an hour later and 15 minutes walk away. As i’ve said in an earlier post I’m not a statistician but I’d be interested to know what the odds are of there being two throat-cutting prostitute murderers in operation within an hour of each other and less than a mile apart?

[Michael W Richards]

We can’t deduce any further motive based purely on the throat-cutting but, as there’s a possibility of the killer being interrupted (which I know that you don’t accept,) further motive remains an unknown. All that we can say is that this murder and throat-cutting of a prostitute occurred within the time period of a series of throat-cutting prostitute murders which were hardly an everyday occurrence and that were within a small geographical location. And that there was another murder with mutilation less than an hour later and 15 minutes walk away. As i’ve said in an earlier post I’m not a statistician but I’d be interested to know what the odds are of there being two throat-cutting prostitute murderers in operation within an hour of each other and less than a mile apart?

You forget that 3 women had their throats cut and died that night, but 2 are unsolved. Another murder happening that night isnt sufficient grounds for it or any murder to be matched with another by a single killer Herlock, surely you realize that. The 2 acts have very little in common aside from a knife being used.

Thinking that the odds are small for more than one man killing with a knife in a square mile or less is all well and good until you remember just how many people lived in that particular square mile. I believe it was around 800,000. And how many a 10 minute walk away? But just one knife wielding killer? That seems logical? The one in a million line must have been coined for just this situation. Knives were common, killers werent all that rare, and even if you want to group 5 women under this Jacks umbrella because of the geography and timing you still have 7 or 8 murders of very similar women in that same rough area and rough place in time to address. Clearly, there was more than 1 murderer acting at that time in that area.