A Case of Misattribution?

[lynn cates]

slacker

Hello Roy. Thanks.

The drop off tally is still double the 1886 rate, right?

My point is that you can do ANYTHING with math, should you so choose. None of this tells us who killed whom.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

Hi Robhouse,

I think I can see the problem Rob, above in bold. Your position above is only viable if your "assumption" of an interruption is valid.

It is a fact that Schwartz witnessed a man assaulting Stride, just a few minutes before she was found murdered. This is what I call an "interruption." The only real assumption I make is that the man seen assaulting Stride actually killed her, which, yes, I do believe. The other assumption is based on human behavior: that if you are in the process of trying to murder someone, and a person happens to see you doing this, you are going to be afraid of being caught. So yes, while this is an assumption, it is an entirely reasonable one... which, incidentally, in my opinion, has been grossly overlooked for years, while people have assumed the interruption was by Diemschitz. The much more likely interrupter is Schwartz himself.

RH

[Lechmere]

The statstics show just how rare these sort of attacks were on women. Unsolved attacks were even rarer.
Two in one night in walking distance of each other and neatly allowing a timeframe for the same person to potentially do both... with the first showing potrential for interruption and hence unsated activity.

And yet some want it to be another hand... because the cut wasn't quite so deep (because he didn't feel comfortable in that location perhaps) or the body left in a slightly different position (because he was interrupted perhaps).
There can be many reasons why the murders are not duplicates of each other.

[lynn cates]

wishes

Hello Lechmere. Speaking of rarity, don't forget there was a third fatal knife attack--same night. And that was a lady as well.

No offense, but wishing won't make it come true.

Try again?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

If there was an interruption, it must have occured after the knife was used on her throat, not when Schwartz passed, which apparently was before the knife was pulled at all.

So, Schwartz see's BS-man throw her down, Schwartz takes off.
BS-man pulls the knife and slashed her throat, and ......is interrupted by someone else?
Pipeman?

I don't think BS-man was her killer, I'm just explaining how the interruption must have occured after Schwartz left, maybe 2-3 minutes or longer, after he left.
So, Schwartz was not "caedes interruptus", it was someone else...

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

It is a fact that Schwartz witnessed a man assaulting Stride, just a few minutes before she was found murdered. This is what I call an "interruption." The only real assumption I make is that the man seen assaulting Stride actually killed her, which, yes, I do believe. The other assumption is based on human behavior: that if you are in the process of trying to murder someone, and a person happens to see you doing this, you are going to be afraid of being caught. So yes, while this is an assumption, it is an entirely reasonable one... which, incidentally, in my opinion, has been grossly overlooked for years, while people have assumed the interruption was by Diemschitz. The much more likely interrupter is Schwartz himself.

RH

Hi Robhouse,

Im sorry, but it is a FACT only that Israel Schwartz's statement allegedly included a scuffle between a Broadshouldered man and a woman nearly in front of the gates to the Mens Club at approximately 12:45. We have neither the statement itself, nor a corroboration for the story, to be sure. The facts are that we have statements on record that indicate perhaps no-one was there at 12:45 and nothing at all occurred in front of the gates until our black bag handler Mr Goldstein at around 12:55-56.

I am on your side on the matter of the BSM...because if that altercation took place at all, he is most probably the man that also kills her a few yards and minutes away.

You might also consider that if you were the murderer and were seen assaulting the soon to be victim, and had a verbal exchange with the suspect, it would be unwise to then finish the job while that witness is still available for interview.

And another thing to consider is the fact that there is absolutely no indication by her physical state that anything more was intended to happen than the murder itself. Since the experts thought the killer of the first 2 women did so to then mutilate and excise, a murder in and of itself seems far less satisfying to such a man, and in fact, suggestive of a new motive. For example, in your scenario he kills her to shut her up.

So he killed "just for the jolly" did he? Not exactly.

Best regards,
Mike R

[robhouse]

Hi Robhouse,

Im sorry, but it is a FACT only that Israel Schwartz's statement allegedly included a scuffle between a Broadshouldered man and a woman nearly in front of the gates to the Mens Club at approximately 12:45. We have neither the statement itself, nor a corroboration for the story, to be sure. The facts are that we have statements on record that indicate perhaps no-one was there at 12:45 and nothing at all occurred in front of the gates until our black bag handler Mr Goldstein at around 12:55-56.

I am on your side on the matter of the BSM...because if that altercation took place at all, he is most probably the man that also kills her a few yards and minutes away.

You might also consider that if you were the murderer and were seen assaulting the soon to be victim, and had a verbal exchange with the suspect, it would be unwise to then finish the job while that witness is still available for interview.

And another thing to consider is the fact that there is absolutely no indication by her physical state that anything more was intended to happen than the murder itself. Since the experts thought the killer of the first 2 women did so to then mutilate and excise, a murder in and of itself seems far less satisfying to such a man, and in fact, suggestive of a new motive. For example, in your scenario he kills her to shut her up.

So he killed "just for the jolly" did he? Not exactly.

Best regards,
Mike R

No, in my scenario it is a botched attempt at accomplishing what he was trying to do, which as you say, is mutilating the person after death. Once Schwartz arrived on the scene, it was botched. I am suggesting that he killed her, then bolted... so he would not be caught in the act, and so Stride would not be alive to identify him.

RH

[lynn cates]

battery

Hello Rob. I see what you mean.

I wonder, though, if he had not killed her, but had walked away, surely he would not be guilty of a very serious charge? Battery, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Rob. I see what you mean.

I wonder, though, if he had not killed her, but had walked away, surely he would not be guilty of a very serious charge? Battery, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

On the other hand, if Schwartz had brought a copper, Stride might have been arrested for soliciting...

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

These Berner Street scenarios are even more inventive than that of Chief Inspector Swanson.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi All,

These Berner Street scenarios are even more inventive than that of Chief Inspector Swanson.

Regards,

Simon

I totally agree.

What should be considered is that if Stride was soliciting prior to her death and her soliciting was of an aggresive nature. .i.e physicllay stopping males as they passed by then the likelihood is that one of these males could have quite easily in declining her offer pushed her aside.

Things are not always sometimes what they seem but despite that some choose to interpert them in a way that suits their purpose

[Bridewell]

Loitering or Soliciting

On the other hand, if Schwartz had brought a copper, Stride might have been arrested for soliciting...

Regards, Jon S.

Only if she was doing so in a street or public place. If she was in Dutfields Yard that wouldn't apply. Perhaps that's why she was standing so close to the gateway, because said copper wouldn't be able to arrest her on Schwartz's say-so, the power of arrest being 'found committing' (by a police officer).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Interpretation

I totally agree.

What should be considered is that if Stride was soliciting prior to her death and her soliciting was of an aggresive nature. .i.e physicllay stopping males as they passed by then the likelihood is that one of these males could have quite easily in declining her offer pushed her aside.

Things are not always sometimes what they seem but despite that some choose to interpert them in a way that suits their purpose

Hi Trevor,

It's hardly unreasonable to speculate that a man seen to assault a woman fifteen minutes before her body is found may have been her killer. There's no more supposition in that than in the suggestion that the assault was violent rejection by an offended passer-by.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Garry Wroe]

I am sorry but I still disagree with you.

Entirely your prerogative, Rob.

Incidentally, I am of the opinion that Stride was interrupted by Schwartz, not Diemshitz … We know that a man was seen attacking Stride. I would call this "interruption." If this man was the killer, as I believe, then he would obviously worry that Schwartz would go get a policeman. But he couldn't let Stride live to identify him. So he drags her into the alley, cuts her throat quickly, and bolts. To me this is common sense, and is "consistent with the evidence."

The principal flaw as I see it, Rob, is that Broad Shoulders had done no more than manhandle Stride when Schwartz appeared on the scene. Stride obviously didn’t suspect that she had fallen into the clutches of the Whitechapel Murderer otherwise she would have screamed for all she was worth. So why did he need to silence her? Why not simply walk away rather than commit a murder knowing that he had been seen by two witnesses?

In the case of Chapman's murder, Dr. Phillips reported the "appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck." Also, the cut to the throat went all the way around the neck. To me this goes beyond simply a means of effecting murder, and suggests the killer wanted to decapitate the victim. Hence it is in the category of post-death mutilation.

I’m open minded about the alleged attempted decapitation, Rob. I would suggest, however, that had the killer been intent on removing a victim’s head, he had ample time and opportunity to do so in the privacy of Kelly’s room. That he didn’t is indicative that the spinal scoring was merely an artefact of the ferocity with which the throat injuries were inflicted.

[Garry Wroe]

The statstics show just how rare these sort of attacks were on women.

Perhaps, Lechmere. But they do not demonstrate that Stride was a victim of Jack the Ripper.

Two in one night in walking distance of each other and neatly allowing a timeframe for the same person to potentially do both... with the first showing potrential for interruption and hence unsated activity.

And yet one of these murders evinces not a single element of the Whitechapel Murderer’s modus operandi or crime scene signature.

And yet some want it to be another hand ...

Want, Lechmere? I rather suspect that you are confusing evidentially based conclusions with some unspecified agenda.

… because the cut wasn't quite so deep (because he didn't feel comfortable in that location perhaps) or the body left in a slightly different position (because he was interrupted perhaps).

Or Stride wasn’t killed by Jack the Ripper perhaps.

There can be many reasons why the murders are not duplicates of each other.

As far as I’m aware, Lechmere, no-one is looking for precise duplication. How could they when no two of the Ripper’s crimes were exactly alike? But the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly shared a number of clear and consistent behavioural commonalities which were conspicuous by their absence in the Berner Street crime. The simple fact of the matter is that there was far greater similitude between the murders of Stride and Coles than those of Stride and Eddowes. Does this mean that you believe Coles to have been a Ripper victim too? And are you suggesting that the volatile, aggressive and abusive drunk who assaulted Stride in full view of two witnesses was the same passive individual sighted by Lawende in company with Eddowes at the mouth of Church Passage?