A Case of Misattribution?

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[lynn cates]

oops

Hello Colin. Thanks. A faux pas.

Still, a 200% increase should raise the eyebrows more than a 66.66% increase.

Why compare 1886 to 1888? What has that to do with a sexual serial killer active in 1888?

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello Gary,

I dont have a lot of time so this will be a brief reply. I am sorry but I still disagree with you. Yes, the cut was less deep, but in general character it was similar. I have explained other reasons for the difference above. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that Stride was interrupted by Schwartz, not Diemshitz. To my way of thinking, this should be obvious... but others do not seem to agree with me. 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."

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.

RH

Totally agree

[Michael W Richards]

Put more simply: Approximately 16 women were murdered in London's metropolis, in 1888.


Now, with that in mind, was throat cutting THAT common?

Monty

I used just 2 sections of your post Monty to ask a few questions.

What of the number of attacks to the throat with knives, suicide by slitting ones own throat, what are the comparative numbers for murders by other means...like with a lead pipe, or a garrote or a screwdriver?

After all, we do have 5 Canonicals killed by throat cuts in 3 months and we have no proof that they were connected to the same killer. We also have to my count 2 suicides by slit throat, male and female, and we have 1 torso that could well have been killed by slit throat during the same period. Not to mention all knife attacks for the year.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Michael W Richards]

I am sorry, but I do not agree with this. The cut to Stride's throat is entirely consistent with the throat cuts to the other victims. They are all made from left to right, commencing under the angle of the left jaw. The cut to Eddowes throat likewise severed the vessels on the left side of the throat, but only partly cut the vessels on the right... just like Stride. Granted, in some of the other cases, the vessels on both sides were severed, but in the Stride case, we are under the assumption that the killer was interrupted, so did not perform any mutilations. And the attempt to sever the head, which is evident in the Chapman murder for example, should fall under the category of mutilation.

RH

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. That is not something that the physical evidence asserts though, the missing mutilations are only missing if the same man killed the first 3 women. If your case rests on the hand used to cut the throat, thereby dictating the direction of the cut, Id say you are playing a longshot.

Right handed people arent that rare.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Roy Corduroy]

Oh, Okay so you want to play shuffle the numbers around?

1888 - 15

1889 - 6

1890 -7


Why the sudden drop off afte ... no wait, Robin, I see Batman's getting bored.

I've never been unnerved by a statistic.

Bored yes

He insists these are statistics anyway, not official records. Another Clew. So whatever yall are cooking up in the Bat Cave, just go with it.



Roy

[Bridewell]

Percentages

Hello Roy. Given the mathematical turn of this thread, look closely.

1886 -3

1887 - 9

1888 - 15

What do you notice? Well, from 1887 to 1888, there was a 66.66% increase.

But from 1886 to 1887 there was a 300% increase!!!!

So the real "spike," percentage wise, came in 1887, NOT 1888.

How can a Jackster account for that?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I think that 1886 to 1887 is a 200% increase, not 300% (6 would have been a 100% increase). Whichever way you look at it 1888 is a 400% increase over 1886.

Regards, Bridewell.