Stride..a victim?

[Michael W Richards]

I agree entirely, c.d, and assume your post wasn't addressed to me, but to the one who wants the blame for all the labelling.

It's bad manners to keep going with this nonsense when he is reminded that nobody has insisted on a solution involving the ripper killing Stride, or even intending to mutilate anyone at that location.

All we know for sure is that a man was out that night, who did intend to murder and mutilate a woman, and he achieved that aim a bit later on, just fifteen minutes' walk away from where Stride was found. It would be irresponsible IMHO to rule this man out for the earlier murder, before a decent case has even been made for another individual wanting Stride dead and making it happen, without ever becoming a suspect.

I'm simply not prepared to rule out a man with a proven record of taking a lethal weapon to the throats of defenceless females. I don't think that makes me deserving of any labels.

Love,

Caz
X

Frankly its very irresponsible assigning Strides murder to a proven serial mutilator just using imagined interruptions, self serving excuses or the number of baseless arguments that people use to make Stride a Ripper victim. Which she was not... by all the available evidence.

You have what you have, a woman killed in a 2 second altercation. The only reason you want to cling to these baseless arguments is because you want to accept the assumptions, or you want to measure the killer against known serial killer data. Problem is....find me another small group of murders that even remotely resembles Polly and Annies murder. By the same man. The medical expert says that Annies murderer used no meaningless cuts and was mutilating her so he could obtain exactly what he wanted. Which is....yep, her uterus. Now you want to portray that same guys as someone who just wants to kill. Thats not what Annies killed wanted, she died so he could mutilate. The kill is almost inconsequential in that respect. It facilitated, it didnt end the attack. Liz Stride is killed by one stroke...and thats all that was intended.

How you could believe this man was Annies killer is only explained by believing that he lost that focus. Based on what? An interruption of some kind?

[Joshua Rogan]

Well, I'd reiterate, no one knows why Israel wasn't at inquest, but the fact remains, without him, Liz is possibly seen outside the Brickies earlier that night, but nothing else. I suppose we should mention Packer though. Another shaky witness. Strip away the shonky sightings, there's really nothing else. Like Polly, it's an unknown where Liz was, or what she was doing. But what little is known doesn't obviously suggest soliciting for a bed.

Er...what about Marshall, Brown, PC Smith?

[DJA]

Just slipping this in .....



Last evening Dr. Thomas Stevenson, lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, and official analyst to the Home Office, being asked by a reporter to express an opinion on the recent murders at the East-end, observed that he would rather not advance a theory on the subject of the commission of the tragedies; but with regard to the extraordinary disclosure made by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner, in the course of his summing up, he (Dr. Stevenson) thought that if the crimes were committed by a pathologist, as had been suggested, the only possible place that a demand for the organ alluded to could emanate from was a quack museum, such as existed in the West-end of London down to a few years ago. It was well known, the doctor added, that no English medical man would need specimens; and as for the publication of a book of the description that had been referred to, such a thing would be utterly impossible except in some far distant land. Questioned as to whether he was of opinion that all the recent murders were the work of the same miscreant, Dr. Stevenson reminded the reporter that there were always plenty of people ready to imitate others in acts of fiendish brutality.

and


Dr. SAVAGE adds to his article a few words with regard to the Whitechapel murders, which he does not think were the work of a single person. One reason for this opinion, upon which he dwells, is the tendency, already referred to, of sensational crimes to beget their like. The scientific way in which the mutilations were accomplished does not seem to him conclusive proof that the murderers belong to the medical profession. There are men, he thinks, outside that profession who, in one way or another, may have obtained the anatomical knowledge which has been exhibited. Nor is he disposed to attribute the crimes to any of the forms of homicidal impulse which he has discussed. All things considered, he is rather inclined to attribute them to "a fiendishly criminal revenge," or to "some fully organized delusion of persecution or world regeneration." This is a question, however, upon which the non-medical world is perhaps almost as capable as a doctor of forming a sound judgment. Whatever be the origin of the crimes which have horrified the whole metropolis, the pressing concern of the moment is the detection of the perpetrator or perpetrators. We are not surprised at the strength of the feeling which is manifesting itself in favour of the offering of a Government reward. At the same time, there is much to be said on the other side. It is absurd to imagine, and almost criminal to assert, that the fact of this step not having been taken is due to apathy either at Scotland-yard or at the Home Office. If experience shows, as we are assured it does, that the offering of a reward in such a case is likely to be injurious rather than helpful to the efforts of the detectives, there is no reason to depart from what is deemed a wise rule because the circumstances are exceptionally horrible. We could mention instances in which, through hope of reward, fabricated evidence has been given, which, had its falsity not been discovered, would have certainly brought innocent men to the scaffold. Moreover, on the hypothesis, which is still strongly held by many, that the murderer (supposing there be only one) is really a madman, he cannot be supposed to have accomplices, and the offer of reward would be futile. No effort should be spared, of course, to follow up every clue, and we see no reason to think that effort is being spared. Nor need we give up hope if it is not immediately successful. The inhabitants of the whole district concerned are now thoroughly aroused to the magnitude of the danger in their midst, and, with extra police activity, the guilty party or parties, if still in the neighbourhood, ought speedily to be brought to justice.

....... to illustrate the upper classes view of the situation before the Double event,source being Morning Advertiser 2 October 1888.

Stevenson was one of three on the Shoreditch Vestry Board, including Henry Gawen Sutton.Same place Mary's body was sent,setting the Inquest location,etc.
Same place the 2am to 3am time frame was suggested by one of the doctors stitching her up.
Same time Hutchinson had Mary up and about with Mr A.
Major Henry Smith had one of the greatest experts on kidneys examine Eddowes' kidney.
Why would one of the greatest pathologists locally,same person, not be stitching Mary up!

Savage was Sutton's son in law.

---

[c.d.]

Frankly its very irresponsible assigning Strides murder to a proven serial mutilator just using imagined interruptions, self serving excuses or the number of baseless arguments that people use to make Stride a Ripper victim. Which she was not... by all the available evidence.


You have what you have, a woman killed in a 2 second altercation. The only reason you want to cling to these baseless arguments is because you want to accept the assumptions, or you want to measure the killer against known serial killer data. Problem is....find me another small group of murders that even remotely resembles Polly and Annies murder. By the same man. the medical expert says that Annies murderer used no meaningless cuts and was mutilating her so he could obtain exactly what he wanted. Which is....yep, her uterus. Now you want to portray that same guys as someone who just wants to kill. Thats not what Annies killed wanted, she died so he could mutilate. The kill is almost inconsequential in that respect. It facilitated, it didnt end the attack. Liz Stride is killed by one stroke...and thats all that was intended.

How you could believe this man was Annies killer is only explained by believing that he lost that focus. Based on what? An interruption of some kind?

Just so you know, Michael you are under no obligation to accept Stride as a Ripper victim. Has someone been holding a gun to your head and forcing you to accept this? If so, contact the Administrator at once.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Er...what about Marshall, Brown, PC Smith?

Saying anything but her prayers.

That muddy's the waters further really. Those sightings probably do suggest soliciting, in all fairness, but they're not at all comparable with Schwartz seeing an attack, and Fanny hearing nowt, despite her doorstep vigil. Inquest wise, I know who is want to talk to.

Smith's deerstalker hat though. That's an unusual and unmistakable piece of headwear. Was he really that wrong?

[DJA]

Ive read comments that suggest Wess was that man.

So ..... he most likely was not

[DJA]

Saying anything but her prayers.

That muddy's the waters further really. Those sightings probably do suggest soliciting, in all fairness, but they're not at all comparable with Schwartz seeing an attack, and Fanny hearing nowt, despite her doorstep vigil. Inquest wise, I know who is want to talk to.

Smith's deerstalker hat though. That's an unusual and unmistakable piece of headwear. Was he really that wrong?

I have no eye deer.

There are however at least 4 species around Kent,including roe herds in Knole Park.

[Michael W Richards]

Just so you know, Michael you are under no obligation to accept Stride as a Ripper victim. Has someone been holding a gun to your head and forcing you to accept this? If so, contact the Administrator at once.

c.d.

Its not just about what I believe cd, its about revealing the persistent myths surrounding these murders as being, in most cases, provably incorrect using only known and vetted data.Thats why we are here isnt it? To uncover and reveal truths? Students gathered to discuss the facts? If thats not correct, then I understand completely why you engage in fictional scenarios to justify beliefs that no known evidence supports. If your here to discuss the cases and the evidence, then youll understand why I object to fantasies about what might be...without using any evidence as justification.

Liz was cut once and left to die. Tell me how that signifies or indicates a man who kills women just so he can mutilate their abdomens? Right...it doesnt.

[Michael W Richards]

So ..... he most likely was not

Yeah, yeah Dr Contrary...youre not so popular with me either. But its very likely Wess was that man regardless.

[DJA]

Yeah, yeah Dr Contrary...youre not so popular with me either. But its very likely Wess was that man regardless.

Wess was possibly used with another,however a "police" interpreter was used for Schwartz.

[DJA]

Its not just about what I believe cd, its about revealing the persistent myths surrounding these murders as being, in most cases, provably incorrect using only known and vetted data.

ROFL.



That just made my day!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Wess was possibly used with another,however a "police" interpreter was used for Schwartz.

I think what's important is that we don't have Schwartz's actual police interview, just Swanson's summary of it. The version from The Star is always going to be open to question, an ad hoc interview via a translator. But the gist of the story, Berner St, that night, that time, that tally's up. Just not with anyone else. Maybe he was silenced, maybe he was confused. Maybe he was lying. Pick your poison.

[c.d.]

I think what's important is that we don't have Schwartz's actual police interview, just Swanson's summary of it. The version from The Star is always going to be open to question, an ad hoc interview via a translator. But the gist of the story, Berner St, that night, that time, that tally's up. Just not with anyone else. Maybe he was silenced, maybe he was confused. Maybe he was lying. Pick your poison.

But most importantly he never said he saw a woman being murdered only being pushed to the ground.

c.d.

[DJA]

.... away from the yard's entrance

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

But most importantly he never said he saw a woman being murdered only being pushed to the ground.

c.d.

On the exact spot a woman was found dead shortly thereafter. Yeah, I'd want to hear his version of events.