Stride..a victim?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It's very clear from multiple repetitive posts that many people believe the following:

1. This was a Ripper murder
2. The Ripper prematurely ended his work, and left the scene

Okay, so now that is well and truly sorted, can we talk about something else?

1.We knew before the thread began that many people believe it.

2. Personally I'd put it like this - Stride might or might not have been a victim; both are possible. The majority believe that she was and there is no evidence that dismisses this possibility.

3. The question "can we talk about something else?" is perhaps a strange one on a thread called Stride..a victim?

.....

On your second question.

. "Oh yes, a great many, and some of the papers have made some startling discoveries of important clues, but I am unable to say that the police have at present any knowledge of them."

To me that sounds sarcastic? It sounds like he's saying that the press were coming up with a lot of 'fantastic revelations' but the police haven't heard a decent one yet.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

1.We knew before the thread began that many people believe it.

2. Personally I'd put it like this - Stride might or might not have been a victim; both are possible. The majority believe that she was and there is no evidence that dismisses this possibility.

3. The question "can we talk about something else?" is perhaps a strange one on a thread called Stride..a victim?

You're right. I guess I was just hoping to hear something original.

On your second question.

To me that sounds sarcastic? It sounds like he's saying that the press were coming up with a lot of 'fantastic revelations' but the police haven't heard a decent one yet.

Sarcastic, or coy?

[FrankO]

If Stride had been found with her skirt up but no mutilations then I'd certainly agree that that would be evidence of interruption Frank but it's a question of at what point was he interrupted? Its possible that he'd got her on to the ground; cut her throat and then been interrupted.

That’s possible, of course, Herlock. Still, her throat clearly wasn’t cut as profoundly as in the other cases. And there’s evidence to suggest that Stride’s murderer pulled her backwards by her scarf, something that happened in none of the other cases either. But even on its own, the less deep & extensive cut is a deviation from the other cases. If things would have panned out for the Ripper ‘as usual’, then Stride would have ended up with her throat cut like the others. Since she didn’t, I think there’s a very good chance that the Ripper was disturbed before he could launch his ‘usual’ initial attack, which would result in a deeply cut throat, from ear to ear. That’s why I would say ‘disturbed’ rather than ‘interrupted’.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That’s possible, of course, Herlock. Still, her throat clearly wasn’t cut as profoundly as in the other cases. And there’s evidence to suggest that Stride’s murderer pulled her backwards by her scarf, something that happened in none of the other cases either. But even on its own, the less deep & extensive cut is a deviation from the other cases. If things would have panned out for the Ripper ‘as usual’, then Stride would have ended up with her throat cut like the others. Since she didn’t, I think there’s a very good chance that the Ripper was disturbed before he could launch his ‘usual’ initial attack, which would result in a deeply cut throat, from ear to ear. That’s why I would say ‘disturbed’ rather than ‘interrupted’.

Fair point Frank. I'll add another word. Maybe because of the location he was slightly 'distracted' and this allowed Stride an extra split second to struggle resulting in a shallower cut?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're right. I guess I was just hoping to hear something original.

Do you mean original from me or just on this particular topic? If it's the latter I can understand how you feel but we can't always find something new.

Sarcastic, or coy?

It genuinely sounds to me like he's saying that the police haven't heard anything 'worth hearing' from the press. Maybe there's a hint of police resentment as if the press had been saying "we're finding better clues than the police?'

Others might read it differently of course.

[FrankO]

The ripping and the eviscerations were a later addition, and it´s not the pro-Ripper fraction´s fault that he never got around to it.

I'm not claiming or trying to claim anything of the kind, Christer.

However, there is nothing at all that is not in sync with a Ripper murder up to the point Stride has her neck cut.

I don't agree. Clearly quite a few people were still up & about in and around Dutfield's Yard (which, obviously, would greatly diminish the chance of getting to mutilate Stride, as, I'm sure, the Ripper would have realized), her throat clearly wasn't cut as deeply & extensively as in the other cases and there's evidence to suggest that her murderer grabbed her by the scarf and pulled her backwards, which happened to none of the other victims.

And that must mean that it is a fair assumption that she was a Ripper victim.

No argument there.

[DJA]

I'm not claiming or trying to claim anything of the kind, Christer.

I don't agree. Clearly quite a few people were still up & about in and around Dutfield's Yard (which, obviously, would greatly diminish the chance of getting to mutilate Stride, as, I'm sure, the Ripper would have realized), her throat clearly wasn't cut as deeply & extensively as in the other cases and there's evidence to suggest that her murderer grabbed her by the scarf and pulled her backwards, which happened to none of the other victims.

No argument there.

Two people in the pitch black area of the yard.
No evidence the scarf was utilized.

[FrankO]

Two people in the pitch black area of the yard.
No evidence the scarf was utilized.

The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. Dr. Blackwell formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way.

[FrankO]

Fair point Frank. I'll add another word. Maybe because of the location he was slightly 'distracted' and this allowed Stride an extra split second to struggle resulting in a shallower cut?

Possibly, Herlock, altough I like Caz's explanatory scenario better (in which Stride didn't want to comply by going to another location, which set him off).

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That’s possible, of course, Herlock. Still, her throat clearly wasn’t cut as profoundly as in the other cases. And there’s evidence to suggest that Stride’s murderer pulled her backwards by her scarf, something that happened in none of the other cases either. But even on its own, the less deep & extensive cut is a deviation from the other cases. If things would have panned out for the Ripper ‘as usual’, then Stride would have ended up with her throat cut like the others. Since she didn’t, I think there’s a very good chance that the Ripper was disturbed before he could launch his ‘usual’ initial attack, which would result in a deeply cut throat, from ear to ear. That’s why I would say ‘disturbed’ rather than ‘interrupted’.

With the victim lying on her left side, along and up close to a wall, that usual deep cut down to the vertebrae, would have been very difficult if not impossible to achieve. As it was, Phillips considered it unlikely the wound inflicted would have been possible using a long knife.

If it were the Ripper, why did he not start with the victim on her back, either by lowering her into that position, or rolling her over if she goes to ground on her side?

A domestic killing doesn't need to answer this question.

A way out of this 'dilemma', is to suppose that Jack only intended to do what was done. Why might that be?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It genuinely sounds to me like he's saying that the police haven't heard anything 'worth hearing' from the press. Maybe there's a hint of police resentment as if the press had been saying "we're finding better clues than the police?'

…some of the papers have made some startling discoveries of important clues, but I am unable to say that the police have at present any knowledge of them.

Okay.

Aside from the interpretation, what is he specifically referring to? We are only dealing with the papers of Oct 1.

Others might read it differently of course.

With a bit of luck, they may even say so.

I wonder what others think about the lack of important arrests, on the prospects for the two men supposedly seen on Berner street - either in terms of their existence, or chance of later identification.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest what could the police have done? Schwartz gave descriptions of the two men but the police could hardly have gone around arresting anyone that confirmed to a pretty general appearance and no one came forward.

Don't know what he could have meant by important clues though?

[DJA]

Pipeman was found and cleared.
Prolly the corner beer shop keeper having a knock off smoke.

[caz]

Well, if it was 'within the quarter of the hour' then we DO know how long Eddowes and her killer were together. Less than 60 seconds or so, since the walking distance, by itself, would take about that long. Unless someone is suggesting the killer picked her up half-way, and by a strange set of circumstances, she jogged with him for eight minutes.

Which is a vital piece of information, no? After killing Stride, he headed, with all due deliberation, directly for Mitre Square, which poses the question why? Why was he was headed in a b-line to that spot, particularly since his digs were considerably east of Mitre Square?

Is he fleeing to the City? No...because after the murder he heads back east. It's all wrong.

Not sure what you're getting at, RJ. It would have taken roughly 15 minutes to walk from Dutfield's Yard to Mitre Square, where Eddowes was found dead at approximately 1.45, ten minutes after the three Jewish men may have seen her talking with her killer, apparently amicably. We don't know when the killer first set eyes on Eddowes, or where they were at that point, but probably somewhere he might have expected to find a woman who would "do nicely", as I think Al Bundy put it. They could then have hooked up and walked together to Mitre Square, or he could simply have spotted her making her way in that direction and followed her, catching up and engaging with her along the way. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the killer went straight to Mitre Square looking for victims, and just happened to find Eddowes in a dark corner, where he immediately cut her throat without so much as a "by your leave". We don't know if he had 'digs', or where they were, but in any case the City may have appealed as it was in a different police district from where the hue and cry over Stride would have been gaining momentum. We don't know if Goulston Street, where he dropped the apron piece, was out of his way or not, or whether that location was incidental or chosen by design.

We could theorize that he was headed toward a known pick-up spot, say the original Aldgate Tube Station. Fair enough. But that suggests a punter who may not be the average denizen of Whitechapel. He's just a run-of-the-mill punter who picks up his women on the main streets in the known pick-up spots like every other run-of-the-mill punter coming in from the West End.

Yet, the man in Dutfield's Yard is a different animal. He's off the beaten track. There's no reason our Aldgate man would be there. Stride was already AT THE SCENE. She hadn't led him from a main thoroughfare. There is an inconsistency between the two sites that needs to be resolved.

But calling him 'our Aldgate man' is not very helpful, because if he was also our Buck's Row man, our Hanbury Street man and our Miller's Court man, there is no reason why he couldn't have been 'our' Dutfield's Yard man too. We don't know where Stride was immediately before she arrived AT THE SCENE, nor do we know if she and her killer walked there together, or whether he was already in the yard when she appeared, or had even followed her there from the Whitechapel Road, either without her knowledge or against her will. Once she reached the club's premises, she may have felt a false sense of security and decided not to budge, while he may have realised this location would never do. If attempts to persuade her to move on failed, his reaction could have been swift and deadly.

I don't understand the 'theft' bit in the final part of your post, so I haven't quoted or responded to it. Sorry.

Have a safe weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Doesn't the single slice to the throat of Stride resemble the first cut (the shorter cut) to the throat of Nichols?

I regard the shorter cut as 'the first', because the longer cut causes more damage, and would make a subsequent shorter cut redundant.
So, on that logic the shorter cut came first to rob life from the victim by severing the main artery. Followed by the more complete longer cut. I think this is also what happened to Chapman, only the second cut ran continuous from the opening cause by the first cut, to make it appear to be one continuous cut completely encircling the neck.

I think it could be argued that the killer of Stride only had time to make his first cut before being interrupted.
Dr. Blackwell did say that the cut could have been applied while the victim was either falling, or on the ground.
It sounds reasonable to me that a distinction between the two is both impossible and unnecessary.