Stride..a victim?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So if someone believes that an interruption took place to account for the lack of mutilation they now have to account for every single anomaly in the case? Is that what you are implying?

c.d.

I'm happy to go through the anomalies with you, if you're keen

[caz]

Church Passage Man is not reactive - he's in control. This is another reason for not believing Schwartz - BS Man is the polar opposite.

He's in control because he has found a passive prospective victim in Eddowes. Who knows how he'd have reacted with one who was unexpectedly stubborn or feisty?

Assuming BS Man existed, he may have left the stage to Stride's killer, waiting in the wings to play the Good Samaritan. If she tried to give him the brush-off too, after successfully getting rid of BS Man, her killer could quickly have turned nasty. A similar scenario played out when Sally Anne Bowman was murdered in September 2005. Her killer, Mark Dixie, waited while his prospective victim [the second woman he targeted that night] was having an argument with her boyfriend. When the boyfriend finally drove off, leaving her alone outside her house, Dixie struck with exceptional violence. He then waited near the body for any sounds coming from the nearby houses, before mutilating her while the coast was clear. The boyfriend was immediately suspected, and might have been convicted if the DNA evidence hadn't cleared him. Dixie was eventually caught when he had to give a DNA sample after a pub brawl.

The wider context can't be ignored. She's in a non-prostitute area, with no money on her, 5 or 6 hours after leaving the lodging house.
She's dressed to go out. She's eaten a good meal. She's been seen being kissed by one or more men.
What possible reason does she have for being anywhere near Dutfield's Yard?

You tell me. We know she was there, so she must have had a reason. Did she see it as a place of refuge, perhaps, from some man she had met earlier, who had become a pest? Was she going to hide in the yard when BS Man spotted her and waded in?

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

And when a poster uses a phrase like 'interruptionist' about a poster who, even in this thread, has expressed a level of doubt as to whether Stride was s ripper victim or not I tend to see someone trying to stoke controversy for its own sake. Especially when the poster making the accusation is the one who claimed that Amelia Richardson was running a brothel from the cellar at number 29 Hanbury Street.

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.

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

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...

As I've said before there's nothing wrong with exploring all angles but we shouldn't confuse opinion for fact. I know that you have an aversion to plausibility but the suggestion that the ripper might have been interrupted is plausible. It might or might not be true but you can't dismiss something on the 'too good to be true' basis.

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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Or the problem might be the use of the word 'screamed.' Especially when coupled with 'not very loudly?'

The important part is 'not very loudly.' As in 'of low volume.' As in 'of a volume that not everyone would have heard.'

As ever you create a mystery without accepting at least the possibility of a very simple explanation.

So are you turning Fanny down?

[caz]

I don't find it strange that no one else saw or heard this confrontation as it would have taken a matter of seconds and if no one was in the street at the time.

I do find it strange that Schwartz wasn't called to the Inquest.

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

[Michael W Richards]

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

The earliest cut time by Blackwell was right around the time that Schwartz said he saw what he said he did Caz, a non-emotional and rational interpretation of that statement suggests that BSM would almost certainly be a prime suspect. The Inquest dealt with how she died, not by whom, an witnessed assault at around the time of her death cannot be excluded if believed. Saying that BSM might have left is just like saying there may have been an interruption, because no evidence exists to support either of those remarks.

[Michael W Richards]

Use whats there.....and according to witnesses we know were there because we have validation for what they saw from secondary sources, that street was virtually empty save for the young couple and Goldstein at 12:55, so... from 12:35 until just after 1. Where is Liz then? She is where she dies, thats where. Who else is around..the young couple out on the street and Fanny off and on at her door...until 12:50 when she says there for 10 consecutive minutes. So, where is Liz' strides killer? Well, it kinda makes sense that hes off the street too...since the man in the young couple isnt a suspect...that the killer was also on that property when Liz is no longer seen on the street.

So...you dont need to follow an obviously falsified story, and you doent need to imagine interruptions or a Surly man assaulting Liz then suddenly leaving unseen...all you need to do is follow the evidence.

The killer came from the grounds of the club. Since we know roughly 30 men are there at the time, not too hard to believe.

[caz]

Screams are loud, by definition. So is shouting 'Lipski'.

When I regularly attended the meetings of the Whitechapel Society, formerly known as the Cloak & Dagger Club, mostly held in pubs that were there in 1888, I don't remember hearing any sounds from outside the building, including passing buses, cars and taxis. I suspect the only audible sounds, while we were all inside chatting, drinking or listening to the guest speaker, would have been police or ambulance sirens.

Were the walls of the Berner Street club so thin that those inside would necessarily have heard two or three muffled screams, or a one-off shout, coming from outside the building? What about the arrival of Louis's pony and cart? Would that have been instantly audible from inside the club?

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

Use whats there.....and according to witnesses we know were there because we have validation for what they saw from secondary sources, that street was virtually empty save for the young couple and Goldstein at 12:55, so... from 12:35 until just after 1. Where is Liz then? She is where she dies, thats where. Who else is around..the young couple out on the street and Fanny off and on at her door...until 12:50 when she says there for 10 consecutive minutes. So, where is Liz' strides killer? Well, it kinda makes sense that hes off the street too...since the man in the young couple isnt a suspect...that the killer was also on that property when Liz is no longer seen on the street.

So...you dont need to follow an obviously falsified story, and you doent need to imagine interruptions or a Surly man assaulting Liz then suddenly leaving unseen...all you need to do is follow the evidence.

The killer came from the grounds of the club. Since we know roughly 30 men are there at the time, not too hard to believe.

Hence Window Man.

Stride is by herself.
Down the stairs,out the front door and into the yard as previously arranged.
Cachous offered,possibly in a white gloved palm,bang!

Eagle might have disrupted proceedings in the dark.

[caz]

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.

So how many posters have you actually encountered, who have argued that interruption in the Stride case is 'the only game in town'?

I hope you didn't invest in too many labels. You might want to return the whole pack and ask Amazon for a refund.

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

So plausibility is only a trap for others to fall into?

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

So are you turning Fanny down?

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

c.d.

[c.d.]

So how many posters have you actually encountered, who have argued that interruption in the Stride case is 'the only game in town'?

I hope you didn't invest in too many labels. You might want to return the whole pack and ask Amazon for a refund.



So plausibility is only a trap for others to fall into?

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[caz]

Use whats there.....and according to witnesses we know were there because we have validation for what they saw from secondary sources, that street was virtually empty save for the young couple and Goldstein at 12:55, so... from 12:35 until just after 1. Where is Liz then? She is where she dies, thats where. Who else is around..the young couple out on the street and Fanny off and on at her door...until 12:50 when she says there for 10 consecutive minutes. So, where is Liz' strides killer? Well, it kinda makes sense that hes off the street too...since the man in the young couple isnt a suspect...that the killer was also on that property when Liz is no longer seen on the street.

So...you dont need to follow an obviously falsified story, and you doent need to imagine interruptions or a Surly man assaulting Liz then suddenly leaving unseen...all you need to do is follow the evidence.

The killer came from the grounds of the club. Since we know roughly 30 men are there at the time, not too hard to believe.

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

[DJA]

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

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.

[c.d.]

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?

An excellent point.

c.d.