Stride..a victim?

[Michael W Richards]

I think it was the late Don Souden who gave a talk on popular ripper myths at one of the conferences, and said there was no reliable evidence for Eddowes telling this 'friend' she knew the murderer's identity. It was almost certainly said to inject a bit of extra drama into the poor woman's fate, along with the fire engine impressions. In any case, she'd only just got back from the hopping, and wasn't around for the previous murders, so was hardly in a position to know anything of the sort. The most recent name he was known by was Leather Apron. There is no foundation for the 'premise' that she headed off to Mitre Square to try her tiny hand at blackmailing either the latest Leather Apron or a robber, in the hope of taking some cash home to avoid the "good hiding" she feared. This has no legs and is beyond ludicrous as a ploy to force yet another throat-cutting lady killer onto the stage.

We know someone claimed she did. With all due respect to Don and yourself, "it was almost certainly" isnt a refutation of any kind. Its a guess. I mentioned a few discrepancies in John story about their last hours...for which there is "no reliable evidence" to support him, and the odd behavior of Kate that last 24 hours, someone getting her drunk in the early evening, her going the opposite direction of home when released...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.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Congratulations, despite not being able to identify the facts that show Stride was clearly not a ripper victim you managed to get there in the end.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When you want what you want aint no facts that matter Trev.

[Michael W Richards]

You cannot possibly know that for anything even approaching certainty Trevor. It's entirely plausible that she was. And the odds favour it heavily.

You do know Herlock there is a valid reason for the nickname? Is Liz Stride mutilated Post Mortem? No. Is that the very reason Annie was killed...to do just that? Yes, it was. Sure, Liz could have been the only unripped Ripper victim....and we would presume that based on what evidence again? Stop pretending that anything could have happened, you dont solve crimes that way. You follow evidence. That tells you that Liz Stride was never to be ripped at all...which is a polar opposite proposition.

[Wickerman]

Contra to Mr Begg's proposal that the Stride inquest may have included an in-camera session, we do read of the press mentioning cases where an incamera session was necessary. Two examples may suffice.

March 1895.


And, December 1887.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You do know Herlock there is a valid reason for the nickname? Is Liz Stride mutilated Post Mortem? No. Is that the very reason Annie was killed...to do just that? Yes, it was. Sure, Liz could have been the only unripped Ripper victim....and we would presume that based on what evidence again? Stop pretending that anything could have happened, you dont solve crimes that way. You follow evidence. That tells you that Liz Stride was never to be ripped at all...which is a polar opposite proposition.

You also don't solve crimes by making sweeping statements and I'm certainly not the one pretending anything. Give me one good reason why Stride's killer could not have been disturbed. Saying "there's no evidence of him being disturbed" is about as meaningless a statement as it's possible to make.

Are you actually saying that he couldn't possibly have been disturbed?

When I asked what would constitute evidence of the killer being disturbed all that you appeared to be able to come up with was someone running away from the scene. How would that be evidence? Have killers never escaped from a crime scene unseen? I haven't a clue why you're so certain of this Michael unless you're defending some theory at all costs?

I'd say that there's probably no poster more wary than I am of stating opinions or possibilities as fact (NBFN called me boring for being cautious) but I will state this as a fact:

It is a 100% certain, unchallengeable fact that Liz Stride's killer could have been disturbed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Contra to Mr Begg's proposal that the Stride inquest may have included an in-camera session, we do read of the press mentioning cases where an incamera session was necessary. Two examples may suffice.

March 1895.


And, December 1887.

Two sufficed for me Wick. Thanks for posting them

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

You also don't solve crimes by making sweeping statements and I'm certainly not the one pretending anything. Give me one good reason why Stride's killer could not have been disturbed. Saying "there's no evidence of him being disturbed" is about as meaningless a statement as it's possible to make.

Are you actually saying that he couldn't possibly have been disturbed?

When I asked what would constitute evidence of the killer being disturbed all that you appeared to be able to come up with was someone running away from the scene. How would that be evidence? Have killers never escaped from a crime scene unseen? I haven't a clue why you're so certain of this Michael unless you're defending some theory at all costs?

I'd say that there's probably no poster more wary than I am of stating opinions or possibilities as fact (NBFN called me boring for being cautious) but I will state this as a fact:

It is a 100% certain, unchallengeable fact that Liz Stride's killer could have been disturbed.

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.

I get Michaels point though. Whoever did this, was willing to go to the length of murder, but left it at that. The act of killing was a huge risk alone, especially in Berner St at that time, which is in itself not typical of the other killings. So if it was "Jack", why take a massive risk, but stop at the point of silence and submission?

I think it's a good point, and worthy of debate. Does it mean interruption is a ridiculous notion? No, not really. It's a valid option. If we look at numerous other factors, and summarise that interruption is unlikely, then great, we have a solid standpoint. But it doesn't rule it out. That's impossible. Likewise, those who favour interruption have equal right to share their view, even if that view is based on the fact that an interruption may not have any obvious indicators.

But it's not ripper 101. If you've not spent 30 years learning, due to poor excuses like only being 20 years old, and a good 15 of them were spent being young, you've no place here. Apparently.

( Just to make it clear, Michael, I don't disagree with you, you make a good case. But not everyone agrees. We don't have to. We do have to justify it, fair enough, but ultimately, we can agree to disagree.)

Anyhow, that's my tuppence on that one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

I get Michaels point though. Whoever did this, was willing to go to the length of murder, but left it at that. The act of killing was a huge risk alone, especially in Berner St at that time, which is in itself not typical of the other killings. So if it was "Jack", why take a massive risk, but stop at the point of silence and submission?

I don't think it's possible to have 'evidence' for interruption Al so it certainly can't be discounted. But as I've said recently im still not 100% certain it was the ripper and any doubt that I have is down to the riskiness of the location. So basically I'd say the likelihood is ripper and I'd say that it's a strong likelihood.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes, Herlock, I was wondering why Schwartz needed to tell his story at all, if he killed Stride and nobody was around to see him with her.

Love,

Caz
X

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Prostitute - throat cutting - plausible possible explanation for the lack of mutilations - outdoors - definite ripper murder around 40 mins later a short distance away.

And you say the odds don't favour it?

Please explain?

Ok you and fish are not clearly singing from the same song sheet as myself

Location-Strides murder took place South of the Whitechapel road, no other murders in the canonical group did, maybe or maybe not a coincidence

Time- No other murders took place as early as her murder, at a time when many members of the public were still walking about

Mutilations - None- Not consistent with other victims. How many seconds would it have taken for the killer to have carried out a frenzied attack and mutilated her body?

Weapon used - A small knife not consistent with the size of knife used on other victims

Organ Removal - If the killers motive was organs removal, and I don't think for one minute it was in any of the victims, he would have selected a victim and made sure that they went to a secluded location. We don't see that here or with the Nicholls or Eddowes murder, neither of them were secluded locations.

In fact it even adds more weight to my theory that the killer did not remove and take away the organs of Chapman and Eddowes

I would say all of these tip the scales in favour of Stride not being a ripper victim.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Ok you and fish are not clearly singing from the same song sheet as myself

Location-Strides murder took place South of the Whitechapel road, no other murders in the canonical group did, maybe or maybe not a coincidence

Time- No other murders took place as early as her murder, at a time when many members of the public were still walking about

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

These two factors, in my opinion, are by far the best reasons to question whether Stride was killed by a different person.

The lack of mutilation and organ removal are always open to doubt, but we do know that if Liz was murdered by 'Jack', it's a location that doesn't match his perceived MO. It wasn't remote, it wasn't quiet. There was a club full of noisy Jewish singers.

[Fisherman]

Ok you and fish are not clearly singing from the same song sheet as myself

Location-Strides murder took place South of the Whitechapel road, no other murders in the canonical group did, maybe or maybe not a coincidence

The distance between Millers Court and Bucks Row is about the same distance as between Millers Court and Berner Street. It is not as if Strides murder site is way off in any way. Whatever perceived idea there may be of Whitechapel Road being a psychological boundary, it remains that it does not move Stides murder site out of the way from the other sites.

Time- No other murders took place as early as her murder, at a time when many members of the public were still walking about

And that may owe to the fact that it was a Saturday murder, whereas Tabram/Nichols/Chapman and Kelly were killed on workday mornings.

Mutilations - None- Not consistent with other victims. How many seconds would it have taken for the killer to have carried out a frenzied attack and mutilated her body?

It would not have taken long. But if you donīt have the time, you donīt have the time. Regardless if that time is a second or a month.

Weapon used- A small knife not consistent with the size of knife used on other victims

Small? Says who?

Organ Removal - If the killers motive was organs removal, and I don't think for one minute it was in any of the victims, he would have selected a victim and made sure that they went to a secluded location. We don't see that here or with the Nicholls or Eddowes murder, neither of them were secluded locations.

But even if we think that we have chosen a secure location, that can change in the blink of an eye. If he needed secure locations, he should not kill out on the open streets of the worldīs largest metropolis in the first place, Trevor.

In fact it even adds more weight to my theory that the killer did not remove and take away the organs of Chapman and Eddowes

I would say all of these tip the scales in favour of Stride not being a ripper victim.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Fisherman]

... it's a location that doesn't match his perceived MO. It wasn't remote, it wasn't quiet. There was a club full of noisy Jewish singers.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok you and fish are not clearly singing from the same song sheet as myself

Location-Strides murder took place South of the Whitechapel road, no other murders in the canonical group did, maybe or maybe not a coincidence

This is pretty weak point.

Time- No other murders took place as early as her murder, at a time when many members of the public were still walking about.

For me it's not the time but the location that gives me most reason for doubt. I'd say that the location carried the highest risk of discovery.

Mutilations - None- Not consistent with other victims. How many seconds would it have taken for the killer to have carried out a frenzied attack and mutilated her body?

Too many seconds if he was interrupted by Diemschutz.

Weapon used - A small knife not consistent with the size of knife used on other victims

I'll need my memory refreshing here but aren't you basing this on a knife being found? A knife that probably wasn't the one used?

Organ Removal - If the killers motive was organs removal, and I don't think for one minute it was in any of the victims, he would have selected a victim and made sure that they went to a secluded location. We don't see that here or with the Nicholls or Eddowes murder, neither of them were secluded locations.

That's a theory which, and of course I'll stand correcting on this, only you appear to adhere to. If it was Jack and he felt that he'd have had time to mutilate then he'd also have had time to remove an organ or two.

In fact it even adds more weight to my theory that the killer did not remove and take away the organs of Chapman and Eddowes

Not really.

I would say all of these tip the scales in favour of Stride not being a ripper victim.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

We have a murdered prostitute.

The murder took place outdoors.

It took place within the same small area as the others.

The victim had her throat cut.

It occurred in the early hours.

It occurred on a night that we know the ripper was active.

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

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

Another murder with the worst mutilations yet took place around 40 minutes later.

That murder was a short walking distance from Berner Street.

The killer avoided capture.

.....

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I posted before seeing Fish's response.