Striking after being seen?

[mariab]

Thanks Lynn.

[lynn cates]

UC

Hello Maria. It's in Evans & Skinner's "Ultimate Companion."

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

"Or, as some contemporary detectives felt, that they were each killed by different men working in tandem?"
Ah, that would be George Lewis, the solicitor, who favoured exactly this point of view.

Lynn, could you please direct me to where I can read about this? Thank you.

[Addy]

I agree, I think you can walk it within a minute, even when walking slowly.

Greetings,

Addy

[Monty]

K,

You can walk it in seconds. Not far at all.

Monty

[K-453]

From the inquest:

Joseph Lawende: […] The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast. He was the taller. She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
[…]
[Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me. I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.
[Coroner] Did you overhear anything that either said? - No.
[Coroner] Did either appear in an angry mood? - No.
[Coroner] Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby. […]

Mr. Joseph Hyam Levy: The point in the passage where the man and woman were standing was not well lighted. On the contrary, I think it was badly lighted then, but the light is much better now.


I attach a photo of Church Passage, taken on the spot where the couple was standing. The murder site was behind the parked car.
Quite a long way to go in a few minutes. What would you say – 60 – 70 yards?

[Phil H]

I'm always shocked when someone says it's an individual opinion that Jack killed Stride, as though the entirety of the contemporary opinion of investigators didn't lean that way.

And I'm always shocked by those who cling to the "conventional wisdoms" like nanny's apron strings. They could have been wrong - after all, they failed to catch Jack, it seems! maybe they should have thought outside the box - multiple killers, no canonical five etc etc.

We don't have to reject contenporary opinion - I have never suggested that - just remain mentally flexible.

By contrast, you have a police Supe (Arnold) and a couple of doctors calling Eddowes copycat. All this 'Stride out' nonsense as it's known today began with AP Wolf and was followed by Evans/Gainey, who also took Mary Kelly out of the mix, and now we have Andrew Cook, Simon Wood, and Trevor Marriott carrying that torch and striking all victims from the list.

I don't agree with all or any of them, but thank heavens some people are capable of original thinking. It doesn;t change the evidence, or destroy anything - it's not like cleaning the Sistine ceiling, or archeology - where you remove permanently what was there before. We simply rearrange the mosaic in a different pattern to see what the effect is - and sometimes they are interesting.

I've seen your reasons for counting out Stride and they're all based on mistakes and a misinterpretation of the evidence, same as AP Wolf, Evans, and every single author - without exception - who concluded Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

And that is my privilege - to make mistakes, if I wish. I'd rather that than those resistant to any sort of originality, DICTATING what I can and cannot say or think. I possess no one over-riding theory on JtR, have no axe to grind, and am frankly appalled by the railway line approach of many of this site. I would condemn it in a schoolchild let alone adults.

It appears that few researchers appreciate how difficult it would be for the average man to kill a woman with a single slice of the knife. Murder is not an easy thing, even for a criminal. But Stride's killer, operating in a very dark and public corner, subdued his victim, dispatched her in the SAME WAY as the Ripper (turning her away from him and cutting her carotid artery), and escaped without any sign of panic or struggle.

I doubt that there are too many different ways to slit a throat, and ther are many reasosn for a man having such a skill. We know nothing of the killer's escape apart from the fact that it was unseen.

That a copycat should be so lucky as to happen to strike in the same hour and within the same mile as the man he's copycatting would be, I believe, a complete anomaly in the annals of crime, particulary when you consider that Eddowes was killed at a far earlier hour than the other victims.

Belief and your assumption.

The single fact upon which the theory that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim hangs, that she wasn't mutilated below the neck, is not enough in the face of all the other facts I've mentioned (and more) to conclude she wasn't a Ripper victim, especially as there are many other less radical explanations for the lack of mutilation.

What satisfies you - and given your approach to this, it seems to be that you question little - would not satisfy me. You site single facts when the situation is nothing like that.

If you're going to espouse the virtues of 'open-mindedness' then I suppose we'll soon see you taking Supt Arnold's point-of-view and reconsidering the various scenarios with Eddowes as the copycat and Stride the Ripper victim?

If I felt it useful, maybe. And why not? What are you so afraid of? You seem to feel that the Inquistion and the Index of Books should be brought back - heretical thinking must not be allowed.

My view of history is that it is for each generation to re-write it in their own light. History - in the sense of interpretation - is about US not then. It seeks to explain what we are and to draw on what we know. It should respect evidence (not views of that evidence) in assessing and evaluating it, and it should not be anachrosnistic - but history's life is in re-visiting and reviewing previous work.

There is - there can and never will be - one and only one solution to the JtR case. As we have seen with the marginalia, even new first-hand written testimony will be "marginalised" by those with a vested interest. See too reactions to the new Dutfield's Yard photo a few years ago. It is views like that (excluding anything that might disagree with an individual's preconceptions) and a vision that sees only one interpretation that drives people away from this site and the study of the case.

I stand second to no man in holding to the highest standards in the evaluation of evidence. I will see nothing dismissed that should not be. But I do aver allegience to freedom of thought and interpretation.

Phil

[lynn cates]

2 points

Hello Tom.

"If you're going to espouse the virtues of 'open-mindedness' then I suppose we'll soon see you taking Supt Arnold's point-of-view and reconsidering the various scenarios with Eddowes as the copycat"

Hmmm, works for me.

"Or, as some contemporary detectives felt, that they were each killed by different men working in tandem?"

Ah, that would be George Lewis, the solicitor, who favoured exactly this point of view.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

I'm always shocked when someone says it's an individual opinion that Jack killed Stride, as though the entirety of the contemporary opinion of investigators didn't lean that way. By contrast, you have a police Supe (Arnold) and a couple of doctors calling Eddowes copycat. All this 'Stride out' nonsense as it's known today began with AP Wolf and was followed by Evans/Gainey, who also took Mary Kelly out of the mix, and now we have Andrew Cook, Simon Wood, and Trevor Marriott carrying that torch and striking all victims from the list. I've seen your reasons for counting out Stride and they're all based on mistakes and a misinterpretation of the evidence, same as AP Wolf, Evans, and every single author - without exception - who concluded Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

It appears that few researchers appreciate how difficult it would be for the average man to kill a woman with a single slice of the knife. Murder is not an easy thing, even for a criminal. But Stride's killer, operating in a very dark and public corner, subdued his victim, dispatched her in the SAME WAY as the Ripper (turning her away from him and cutting her carotid artery), and escaped without any sign of panic or struggle. That a copycat should be so lucky as to happen to strike in the same hour and within the same mile as the man he's copycatting would be, I believe, a complete anomaly in the annals of crime, particulary when you consider that Eddowes was killed at a far earlier hour than the other victims. The single fact upon which the theory that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim hangs, that she wasn't mutilated below the neck, is not enough in the face of all the other facts I've mentioned (and more) to conclude she wasn't a Ripper victim, especially as there are many other less radical explanations for the lack of mutilation.

If you're going to espouse the virtues of 'open-mindedness' then I suppose we'll soon see you taking Supt Arnold's point-of-view and reconsidering the various scenarios with Eddowes as the copycat and Stride the Ripper victim? Or, as some contemporary detectives felt, that they were each killed by different men working in tandem?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

Garza - it is your privelege to keep a closed mind. Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise.

I was careful in my choice of words as I recall. I wrote: "We know that he had to have time to get her, or go with her, to that dark corner." I was, indeed, careful to try not to rule anything in or out.

Much of the rest of what you say clearly reflects your own assumptions (fair enough):

Lets not forget that the victims chose the murder location. Eddowes was already late home and by her own words in trouble with the other half, she had spent all her money on booze. I would say she would have gone to the nearest dark spot to do the business, get it over with and get another client/go home. [My emphasis.]

We also don't know that Jack stalked/followed his victims. So surely we should rule nothing in and nothing out.

As you have states in another thread Jack is a very careful man, tries to limit blood on himself and his shoes, he is likely not want to be seen by anyone with the victim, I would be surprised if he spent more than 5 mins with the victim (alive).[ My emphasis.] YOU used the word likely.

Phil, no-one is cramming. I suggest you read earlier posts in the thread.

Stride was murdered 12.45am-1am.
Eddowes was murdered 1.30am-1.45am (at latest 1.36am probably).
Less than a mile apart.

YOUR timings and YOUR assumption of a link.

Was there time between those murders to get to the next location, meet and talk business for 5 minutes (even 10 mins) with a woman and kill her? Yes. And THAT is a fact.

But it is POSSIBLE, using different ASSUMPTIONS that a different scenario occured - open your eyes and your mind, please. There is NO PROOF that "Jack" killed Stride - ONLY assumptions and conventional thinking.

And this is Victorian Whitechapel, you don't have to look very hard to see a woman selling her wares. Assumption - however well-based. We know nothing of HOW "Jack" approached women, or when, and neither you nor I have ever been to Victorian Whitechapel, which is not NOW but THEN - so while I understand your use of the tense, present tense is not appropriate in this context!

I stick to my point.

Phil

[Garza]

Further, and I know this will annoy some - if, for a moment, you disassociate "Jack" from the murder of Stride and allow that someone else could have done that, then "Jack" has much more time to stalk or meet, Eddowes; to walk with her by any route to the Square, and to kill and mutilate her.

You sound like Jack met Eddowes in Houndsditch and took her on a leisurely stroll to Mitre Square. Lets not forget that the victims chose the murder location. Eddowes was already late home and by her own words in trouble with the other half, she had spent all her money on booze. I would say she would have gone to the nearest dark spot to do the business, get it over with and get another client/go home.

We also don't know that Jack stalked/followed his victims. As you have states in another thread Jack is a very careful man, tries to limit blood on himself and his shoes, he is likely not want to be seen by anyone with the victim, I would be surprised if he spent more than 5 mins with the victim (alive).

Trying to cram everything into an artificial timeframe - and linking Stride/Eddowes is purely a conventional wisdom NOT proven fact -could be misleading us in various ways. Maybe we need to open our mental timeframes and consider other possibilities and be more flexible in our approach.

Phil

Phil, no-one is cramming.

Stride was murdered 12.45am-1am.
Eddowes was murdered 1.30am-1.45am (at latest 1.36am probably).
Less than a mile apart.

Was there time between those murders to get to the next location, meet and talk business for 5 minutes (even 10 mins) with a woman and kill her? Yes. And THAT is a fact.

And this is Victorian Whitechapel, you don't have to look very hard to see a woman selling her wares.

[Phil H]

Timings

Wasn't it Conan Doyle who said (through the mouth of Sherlock Holmes) that once you had ruled out the impossible what you were left with was the truth? (Not an exact quote, but it will serve my purpose.)

Leaving aside whether or not the given timings are reliable or exact - two men in 1888 looking at their watches at the same moment, might have been out by minutes if not more - I think there are some facts that can be ascertained.

We know that Eddowes WAS murdered and mutilated.
We know that her killer got away unseen.
We know he took a piece of her apron for some reason (pace those who think Eddowes lost it herself).
We know he had time not only to kill her - silently - but also to mutilate her face and rip open her belly.
We know that he had to have time to get her, or go with her, to that dark corner.
We have to allow for the movements and stated perceptions of the PC and the nightwatchman.

So, if we do rule out the supernatural, there was time to do all that. If that seems impossible given things like the conventional timing of the Lawende sighting, then either the timing is incorrect, or Lawende & co saw someone else.

On balance, I do not feel confident that Lawende and his friends saw "Jack" either with Kate or not. It is entirely possible that "Jack" was already at his work at that very moment in the shadows nearby.

Further, and I know this will annoy some - if, for a moment, you disassociate "Jack" from the murder of Stride and allow that someone else could have done that, then "Jack" has much more time to stalk or meet, Eddowes; to walk with her by any route to the Square, and to kill and mutilate her.

Trying to cram everything into an artificial timeframe - and linking Stride/Eddowes is purely a conventional wisdom NOT proven fact -could be misleading us in various ways. Maybe we need to open our mental timeframes and consider other possibilities and be more flexible in our approach.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

I realise that the square was poorly lit, and also that the corner in which the murder occured was the darkest in the square - but I agree that this has always bothered me. In patrolling his beat, he would have gone down Church Passage but not into the square - but by standing at the end (or near the end) of Church Pasage he would have been looking directly at the murder site, and at a time where he may very well have seen the murderer in action. If Jack was in there, I think it's unlikely he wouldn't have been seen.

I see two likely options:
1. the murderer had heard the approaching policeman and left - I think a dead motionless body would be less likely to have been found and was maybe overlooked in the gloom.
2. The policeman never went that far up Church Passage - I believe it had a kink in it such that you couldn't see into the square from Duke street? I think that while he perhaps should have gone that far up the passage, maybe he was running late, and didn't, and lied.

the policeman would see nothing of JTR, maybe just a dark out of focus shadow moving away, but JTR would definitely see the policeman coming/ hear him too........it's a no brainer, JTR escapes easily !

the first thing you detect at night is movement, then the first thing you notice is the face, your eyes are drawn instantly to this, but it's so easy to miss something off to one side if it's dead still....you also hear very well at night, much better than during the day.

but remaining dead still is an extremely dodgy tactic, he's far better off legging it..... so JTR sees somebody coming and quickly cuts off part of the apron.

alternatively:- JTR is already finished and gone before the copper comes along, because there is no indication that JTR was ever intending to butcher Eddowes more than was seen !

[Malcolm X]

I don't think the police would have phased him as they couldn't have pinned it on him, but the vigilance committee may have done. Rumour gets round and one night you're lynched on the streets.

the police cant nail JTR before he's committed murder can they, so there's nothing wrong with somebody walking right past you, stopping and then talking to you..... because all you are is an innocent guy talking to a woman, the knife you're carrying ? well that's for self defence isn't it!

the police have sod all on you, you're only vulnerable if you have evidence lieing at home

[Addy]

If Jack kept really still when he heard the policeman approach, he also would have been difficult to spot. And the policeman did not stop to take a hard look around the square, he probably glanced at it and walked on. To see someone in the darkest corner, while perhaps himself standing in the light of a streetlantern, would have been unlikely. And so far Jack had not murdered in this area, so he probably wasn't particularly on the lookout for him.

Personally I believe the scenario described in Scotland Yard Investigates, that Jack and Kate were in the square and the policeman did not spot them.

Greetings,

Addy