Stride..a victim?

[Abby Normal]

Drips and drabs, dear Abs.

"...I cannot help feeling that this was the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago."

Wasn't that feeling based in part on Elizabeth Long's eye-witnessing?
Are you sure you've picked the right cop?

"...Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."

That's because you George, interviewed the man at length, and didn't realize who you were talking to!
Interview with a Ripper - I've got the name for my movie!

not sure what your on about in the first part above. but re abberline interviewing hutch (i think thats what your referring to)-if hutch was the ripper it wouldnt be the only time an astute detective was fooled by a crafty killer. and in abberlines defense, at the time, cops had little experience with serial killers in general.

He did eventually go with a suspect in chapman, who to me and many others, including IMHO the best authority on the subject, Sugden, a very valid suspect.
so yes Ive picked the right cop.

[DJA]

Honestly reckon Abberline was transferred to cover the whole thing up.
He was there the next day for Nichols' Inquest.
Probably ran a Consorting Squad type set up when he worked the area previously.

[Michael W Richards]

What evidence would there be assuming the interruption hypothesis is true?
'

For a start, any evidence the killer was moving the victim onto her back, or spreading her legs...lifting her clothing to expose her midsection. ALL alleged ripper victims excluding Liz had those physical features. Since she was cut only once, how about that all important 2 throat cuts he used before and after Strides murder? Did any witness see anyone fleeing? Nope, and Fanny was at her door from 12:50 until 1am.

Im just covering a few basic ways there could have been a basis for that kind of discussion, although it would seem that even despite the lack of evidence for it some people embrace the idea anyway. Maybe its because they have decided beforehand that this was done by Jack. Cart before the horse logic...which you find in abundance in this study.

I can say that the people who embrace the above do not factor in 4 corroborated witness accounts, because that would mena that Liz was found by 12:40, not just after 1. The only place the killer could have been after Liz is seen with PC Smith is on that property, and the only people who could have seen someone arrive, didnt. Because almost all accounts say the street was essentially deserted except for the young couple after 12:35.

That is of course except for our very theatrical witness, who claimed people and events that only he saw apparently.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For a start, any evidence the killer was moving the victim onto her back, or spreading her legs...lifting her clothing to expose her midsection. ALL alleged ripper victims excluding Liz had those physical features. Since she was cut only once, how about that all important 2 throat cuts he used before and after Strides murder? Did any witness see anyone fleeing? Nope, and Fanny was at her door from 12:50 until 1am.

Im just covering a few basic ways there could have been a basis for that kind of discussion, although it would seem that even despite the lack of evidence for it some people embrace the idea anyway. Maybe its because they have decided beforehand that this was done by Jack. Cart before the horse logic...which you find in abundance in this study.

I believe the theory is in the process of changing to the Ripper deciding to flee before the throat cut, because he had already been spooked.
So he just kills her to keep her quiet.
Now the problem becomes; all he has done at that stage is throw her down. Hardly a hangable offence, and it hardly seemed to bother Israel.
Furthermore, as he has been seen by Schwartz, proceeding with the kill just to shut her up would have been a highly irrational act.
If he is spooked prior to killing her, he leaves. No murder.

If we stick with interruption due to something after the throat cut, as he had somehow managed to get her boots tucked-in behind the gate, after pulling her back from the street, his next step would be to drag her down the lane a bit, to gain clearance. No evidence this occurred.

Considering both scenarios, the interruption theory is going nowhere fast. On the other hand, it is plausible.

I can say that the people who embrace the above do not factor in 4 corroborated witness accounts, because that would mena that Liz was found by 12:40, not just after 1. The only place the killer could have been after Liz is seen with PC Smith is on that property, and the only people who could have seen someone arrive, didnt. Because almost all accounts say the street was essentially deserted except for the young couple after 12:35.

That is of course except for our very theatrical witness, who claimed people and events that only he saw apparently.

FYI, there is a reference in the Star, Oct 1, to the man of the theatre...

…the story of a man who is said to have seen the Berner-street tragedy, and declares that one man butchered and another man watched, is, we think, a priori incredible.

[DJA]

Her feet were 6 or 7 feet from the gates - Morris Eagle at the Inquest.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Lamb: When I got there I had the gates shut.
Baxter: But did not the feet of the deceased touch the gate?
Lamb: No; they went just behind it, and I was able to close the gates without disturbing the body.

[DJA]

The feet of the deceased extended just to the swing of the gate, so that the barrier could be closed without disturbing the body. I entered the club and left a constable at the gate to prevent any one passing in or out.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You're getting the swing of it!

[DJA]

Blackwall - Her feet were three yards from the gateway.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

What evidence would there be assuming the interruption hypothesis is true?
'

The problem with 'proving' interruption, is that it relies on the interruption occurring at a point where the killer has done sufficient mutilation, or demonstrably attempted such, for us to say 'yes, clearly interrupted'.

If the interruption occurs earlier, then it stands to reason there's no 'proof' of the physical kind that's being sought.

If he marked a potential victim, but was put off attacking, and walked away, is this not interruption? But we'd never know about it. So it can't be proved, however likely it might be that Jack had intended victims he never attacked.

The nature of Strides death is naturally worthy of question, but arguing that lack of abdominal wounds is proof of a lack of intention, or arguing that it somehow proves he wasn't interrupted is a bit flawed.

[Michael W Richards]

The problem with 'proving' interruption, is that it relies on the interruption occurring at a point where the killer has done sufficient mutilation, or demonstrably attempted such, for us to say 'yes, clearly interrupted'.

If the interruption occurs earlier, then it stands to reason there's no 'proof' of the physical kind that's being sought.

If he marked a potential victim, but was put off attacking, and walked away, is this not interruption? But we'd never know about it. So it can't be proved, however likely it might be that Jack had intended victims he never attacked.

The nature of Strides death is naturally worthy of question, but arguing that lack of abdominal wounds is proof of a lack of intention, or arguing that it somehow proves he wasn't interrupted is a bit flawed.

The part I highlighted above is almost certainly true of the killer of Polly and Annie, I believe they were in the proverbial wrong spot at the wrong time. I think they were selected from among other prospects, or the situation seemed right at that moment. I wouldnt be surprised if sometime within the same time frame that existed from Polly to Annie he went out trawling again.

The Stride murder is an anomaly, that much can be agreed upon. But rather than assume some sort of abbreviated attack for some reason or another, the variances are still significant enough to wonder whether this is the same killer. Certainly the "style" is different. People often inject serial killer histories here to explain why this is so different from any previous Canonical victims, like they do to explain a loss of skill and purpose in room 13. But the far simpler story is that many, many people in that immediate area were capable of murder. The most desperate of the desperate. Why they did it is the real litmus test, that compulsion or madness will be a recognizable component.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Blackwall - Her feet were three yards from the gateway.

Whereas Lamb, with his more detailed account, places her head three yards from the gateway.

However, assuming her feet are 9' from the gateway, and a body height of 5½', as she is tucked-up a bit on her side, her head would be about 13½' away.
That would put the front of Louis' cart about level with the doorway, and the pony's nose well beyond it.

Louis: I drove in as usual, but as I came into the gate my pony shied to the left, and that made me look at the ground to see what the cause of it was. I could see that there was something unusual on the pavement, but I could not see what it was. It was a dark object. I tried to feel it with the handle of my whip to discover what it was. I tried to lift it up with it. As I could not I jumped down at once and struck a match.

When Louis tries to lift the object and fails, he jumps down. Sounds like the cart is stationary at that point.
So is the pony currently down past the doorway, after shying at the gates?

So getting back to the point, what is being asked is; what would be the very next action after cutting the throat?
Roll her onto her back? It's a wonder she isn't already on her back, considering how skilful this man is at incapacitating victims and keeping them as quiet as a mouse, when he does.
How undisciplined, then, for him to have just yelled 'Lipski!' at some disinterested passer-by. He must have been half-tipsy.

[Michael W Richards]

This is the only JtR murder where a medical expert suggests the victim may have been cut "while falling", in the previous "Ripper" cases and in the subsequent ones it was assumed the victims were on the ground when cut (or in bed)...which makes strangulation, garroting, choking,...some form of asphyxiation, a precursor. In Strides case it appears she was grabbed by her scarf, and it was twisted and tight while the cut was being made..."perhaps "while falling", which means he wasnt choking her to make her unconscious then lay her on her back on the ground.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The problem with 'proving' interruption, is that it relies on the interruption occurring at a point where the killer has done sufficient mutilation, or demonstrably attempted such, for us to say 'yes, clearly interrupted'.

If the interruption occurs earlier, then it stands to reason there's no 'proof' of the physical kind that's being sought.

If he marked a potential victim, but was put off attacking, and walked away, is this not interruption? But we'd never know about it. So it can't be proved, however likely it might be that Jack had intended victims he never attacked.

The nature of Strides death is naturally worthy of question, but arguing that lack of abdominal wounds is proof of a lack of intention, or arguing that it somehow proves he wasn't interrupted is a bit flawed.

Let's put some numbers on this.

Hypothetically speaking, how much time elapses between the cutting of the throat, and some obvious sign that mutilation is about to commence?
Let's say that sign is the grabbing of the skirt, to hoist it up.
Perhaps as little as two seconds - this guy is fast - but let's say 5 seconds.

Now how much time would he like to spend in the mutilation phase? Let's say 5 minutes.
However, at some point during that 5 minutes, it will become ambiguous as to whether he would want to continue.
So let's say the non-ambiguous mutilation timespan is 2 minutes.

So we have a sub-total timespan of 125 seconds.
If interruption occurs in the first 5 seconds, there will be no physical evidence for it.
So what are the chances that he flees, leaving no evidence of interruption?

5/125 * 100/1 = 4%

Therefore the chances of the killer having had no intention of mutilating the Stride, are 96%.

[DJA]

This is the only JtR murder where a medical expert suggests the victim may have been cut "while falling", in the previous "Ripper" cases and in the subsequent ones it was assumed the victims were on the ground when cut (or in bed)...which makes strangulation, garroting, choking,...some form of asphyxiation, a precursor. In Strides case it appears she was grabbed by her scarf, and it was twisted and tight while the cut was being made..."perhaps "while falling", which means he wasnt choking her to make her unconscious then lay her on her back on the ground.

Try getting hold of Begg and Fido's "The Complete Jack the Ripper A to Z".
It is an interesting read.
Especially Dr Phillips opinion on the above at the Inquest.

Also concerning his push to have Matthews offer a reward to an accomplice to Mary Kelly's murder. He had been approached by a likely co conspirator.

Available as an ebook for as little as Oz $9.99.

There are other interesting books by people like Sugden,Skinner and even Wescott,although he does manufacture some of his facts,nice bloke all the same.