What makes her such a likely candidate?

[Dan Norder]

You asked me for my notes a couple of years ago. I'm about to bin them to make room in my bookcase.

I'd hate to see anyone throw out anything that could be useful. I'd take them if you don't mind sending them to me.

[Fisherman]

While I´m at it: We have Blackwells testimony telling us that "the feet almost touched the wall". If Stride was lowered down, and then slumped over on her side, then why did the feet happen to end up on top of each other? Blackwell does not say that ONE foot almost touched the wall - he says that BOTH feet did.
If you are rolled over on your side, I think the chances of your feet ending up like that are minimal. To me, it sounds like she drew her legs up herself to the position in which they were found.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

If we only look at Diemschutz as the interrupter, then his timing was so perfect as to be unimaginable. In the area of a busy club, anything might have spooked him, and so, the interruption theory isn't hanging upon one possibility.

Heretofore, the interruption theory seems to have been bandied about as the reason for the killer being frustrated in his intention to mutilate, initially - it was claimed - by the arrival of the pony and cart. Even if there were something else that spooked him before Diemschutz's arrival, it's a bit hard to believe that it happened in the instant between the cutting of the throat and the deposition of the body on the ground. Furthermore, if it was (say) Kozebrodski opening the scullery door to spit his baccy into the yard, that would tend to push the time of death a little further away from Diemschutz's entrance, as by the time he arrived there was only the heap on the floor, and no report of anyone else in the yard.

As you say, Mike, the notion that the killer didn't even have time to roll Stride onto her back needn't negate the concept, but what I sense is a progressive shrinking, or at least a distinct fluttering, of the time envelope during which the "interruption effect" might have applied.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:
"No. He brought her down to ground slowly, allowing her weight to slump. This caused her legs to be drawn up. It was as if her knees were buckling. I suggest only that her position indicates that he brought her to the ground and that his act of bringing her to the ground would have allowed him to simply turn her a little given an extra second of time. Again, he didn't draw up her legs. That was a natural happenstance of his lowering her to the ground. I contend that he lowered her because he wasn't finished yet, and that her being on her side was also natural due to his using mostly one arm to support her weight. She would have, of necessity, been dropped to one side, knees drawn up."

Okay, Mike - that makes better sense. But I think that we must weigh in that her knees were drawn high up. It was said that they looked drawn up as in agony. That implies that they were drawn up significantly beyond a ninety degree angle to the body.
Now, if he lowered her that far, meaning that she must have come close to sitting down on the ground, then why would he turn her over on her side in the first place, considering that he must have wanted her on the back to do the cutting? I do not see the necessity you are talking about, and I do not think it applied in any other case either. With Chapman, she could hardly have been on her side at any stage, given the small space between boarding and stairs. To me, Chapmans position implies clearly that if she was lowered to the ground, then she was not lowered with the Ripper standing behind her! I see no reason to believe that the Ripper was lowering Nichols or Eddowes standing behind them either.
Remember the description of Stride: ”Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration”. If that was the killer grabbing her, he seems to have grabbed her from the front. And in Annie´s case: ”there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest.”
And even IF the Ripper for some reason held onto Stride from behind, then why not just let Stride slump all the way down, take a step back, and let her drop on her back? The angle of the knees tells us that she was quite close to the ground anyhow, if that angle was something that did not come about because she drew her legs up after falling.

To me, Strides position has always pointed very much away from the Ripper being responsible for putting her there. Another thing involved is that IF he did it the way you are suggesting he did, then he would either have cut her at the very final stage of her fall, more or less as he was rotating her onto her side, OR he waited to let her end up on the ground, whereafter he reached in over her, almost banging his own head against the clubhouse wall, shoved his knife in under her neck and cut her as she was lying down, with the blade travelling upwards.

In the other cases, the doctors press the point that the victims would have been lying down on the ground as he cut. One of the things that caused the medicos to opt for that guess, would have been that the force inflicted on the victims, that allowed the knife to travel down to the bone, implies that the heads of the victims were supported from behind as he cut. But that was not applies in the Stride case, whichever way you look at it.

If it was the Ripper, then why did he either cut when Stride was falling or settle for cutting her when she was in a position totally on her left side? Why not roll her over, get behind her and THEN cut, when the position allows you to apply maximum weight to the cut, and affords you access to cut all the way around the neck with undiminished force? If he did so with all the other victims, why on earth would he set about doing it the other way around on Stride?

Nah, Mike - though your suggestion takes us as close as the evidence allows for bringing the Ripper on stage, I think that weighed together it all speaks very clearly away from him!

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[anna]

Hi all,

I tried to hold my mum when she fainted...she was short but quite plump...and was one hell of a weight when unconcious.I dropped her,and she grazed her face by her cheek bone,because when she fell I grabbed her,and pulled her round so she wouldn't fall on her face.
Funnily enough,when I read that Liz had a graze on her face,I did wonder if Jack had done the same.

I did think that Polly and Annie would have been a lot for someone to hold,unless they were of the build of,say,Stevenson?

As to lowering them gently...

Once the weight is tipped to a certain angle against your body,the inclination is to drop them,as you have an inbuilt warning that tells you that you might get crushed by the weight.....If you've ever tipped a wardrobe..you know what I mean

(Got this from an undertaker at the local cemetry,while he hung around leaning against his highly polished vehicle....having a ciggie.)

Hello all,

A few points...

Liz Stride was possibly lowered to the ground, but it is also possible that she was cut "while falling", as per Baxter.

The mud on her clothing and face indicates she lay as she fell, completely on her left side, drawing her knees into her body.

In the death of Polly, Annie and Kate, it was suggested by medical authorities that they were already incapacitated, and on the ground on their backs, when the throat cut was made. Liz 's body indicates she lay as she landed, on her side.

Polly, Annie and Kate and Mary were on their backs with their legs slightly, or dramatically splayed open.

Stride is the only victim clutching something in death. Breath fresheners. Indicating perhaps that she was completely unaware she was in danger with her company.

It is not believed, nor indicated, that she was moved, or even touched after her cut and landing. All other Canonicals were.

Liz Stride was grabbed from behind by her scarf, and the scarf was twisted tight. There is no indication that any others were choked in that manner.

Liz Stride is the only known person near the gates when she meets BSM, and the yard was empty as per witnesses. Witness and Pipeman left the scene. Indicating that the man who assaulted her minutes before was the only known man at that place during that time.

Liz Stride is the only Canonical with a single wound.

Liz Strides assailant spoke to the witness.

Em made a comment to me that I was revising the details. I am definately drawing different conclusions about the nature of the man that killed her, and why, than almost everyone, but based on the above criteria, which is unrevised. The truth is that the Police really had nothing to go on regarding her killer, and therefore should not have assigned her death to an unknown man who supposedly kills so he can mutilate post mortem. The members of the club went into the street yelling "another woman" had been killed, inferring that she was killed by someone who had killed previously, as she is the first, not second, victim discovered that night. This was in my opinion a rather blatant effort to deflect any potential link to someone at that club being involved.

As I said before it appears that if you choose to allign this death with the other 4, you do so with the knowledge that as per witnesses, the only people that were known to be at that location at approx 12:46, by the gates, or in the yard, was Liz and her assailant. A man who Im fairly sure few people would describe as "cunning", based on his weaving entrance and foiled attempt to take Liz into the street.

Best regards all.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike,A good point and , if true, then we should suppose that the alleged interruption - Diemschutz, whatever - must have happened within the split second required to turn her 90° onto her back. If her killer was prevented from executing this simple action, let alone any intended mutilation, it strikes me that we have another reason to cast serious doubt on the "interruption hypothesis".

Maybe 2 seconds with regards to setting down the knife or switching hands or something, but I don't see how this negates the interruption concept. It doesn't further it, perhaps, but it may show that the killer of Stride wasn't in such a hurry if he were to slowly bring her to the ground instead of just slashing and running. If we only look at Diemschutz as the interrupter, then his timing was so perfect as to be unimaginable. In the area of a busy club, anything might have spooked him, and so, the interruption theory isn't hanging upon one possibility.

Cheers,

Mike

[mac-the-kipper]

Hi Mike,A good point and , if true, then we should suppose that the alleged interruption - Diemschutz, whatever - must have happened within the split second required to turn her 90° onto her back. If her killer was prevented from executing this simple action, let alone any intended mutilation, it strikes me that we have another reason to cast serious doubt on the "interruption hypothesis".

Agreed, wholeheartedly. And this is why I suggested that the killer would have heard Diemschutz's pony coming from quite a distance. It couldn't possibly have been that. It must have been, (if interrupted at all) something/one that happened without too much warning.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

I suggest only that her position indicates that he brought her to the ground and that his act of bringing her to the ground would have allowed him to simply turn her a little given an extra second of time.

A good point and , if true, then we should suppose that the alleged interruption - Diemschutz, whatever - must have happened within the split second required to turn her 90° onto her back. If her killer was prevented from executing this simple action, let alone any intended mutilation, it strikes me that we have another reason to cast serious doubt on the "interruption hypothesis".

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

No. He brought her down to ground slowly, allowing her weight to slump. This caused her legs to be drawn up. It was as if her knees were buckling. I suggest only that her position indicates that he brought her to the ground and that his act of bringing her to the ground would have allowed him to simply turn her a little given an extra second of time. Again, he didn't draw up her legs. That was a natural happenstance of his lowering her to the ground. I contend that he lowered her because he wasn't finished yet, and that her being on her side was also natural due to his using mostly one arm to support her weight. She would have, of necessity, been dropped to one side, knees drawn up.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"According to Baxter, Stride was brought down to the ground by the killer. I suspect that he could have allowed her to fall and it would have been quicker for him. He cut have just cut and run (as George Bush says). I think the drawn up legs indicates a placing down of the victim. This suggests to me that there was more to follow givn time. If he was hold the knife in one hand and supporting the body with one arm, it seems natural that she would have been brought down to one side or the other. This is speculation, but worth considering in my book."

Mike, it is obvious that she was never on her back. The mud on her clothes speaks clearly to us about that. She went down on her left side, very close to the wall, ending up and thereafter staying in a phoetal position.

If the killer was interested in eviscerating her, then why on earth would he FIRST draw her legs up, and THEN turn her on her back? Wouldn´t it make a lot more sense to begin by rolling her over, only THEN to raise her legs, ensuring that they ended up exactly where he wanted them? If he did it while she was on her side, there was an obvious chance that they would slump down again, slipping away on the muddy ground.

No, Mike, I think it is much more credible that she huddled up herself, or that she simply slumped down, the legs bending under the weight, and ending up the way they did. To suppose that the Ripper would have done it in preparation for turning her over seems a very strange suggestion to me.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

According to Baxter, Stride was brought down to the ground by the killer. I suspect that he could have allowed her to fall and it would have been quicker for him. He cut have just cut and run (as George Bush says). I think the drawn up legs indicates a placing down of the victim. This suggests to me that there was more to follow givn time. If he was hold the knife in one hand and supporting the body with one arm, it seems natural that she would have been brought down to one side or the other. This is speculation, but worth considering in my book.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike!

You write:
"The position of the body: Her legs were drawn up", and use that to compare Stride with the other "canonicals", implying that she had been made ready for evisceration.

But she was lying completely on her side, Mike, from the outset. In a phoetal position, as it were, with her abdominal region facing the clubhouse wall, a short distance from it. That does not suggest upcoming surgery to me!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Sorry for the typos in my last post. Teaching English to 180 students, 11 hours per day, and sleeping 4-5 hours a night does little for my concentration. I will try harder. I promise.

Mike

[emlodik]

Hi Em,

To be fair, "Close by" is not exactly accurate, and the second victim is not even found in the East End where all the other victims were. And "Soon after" is actually 45 minutes later. There is no obvious connection of these murders by their proximity, their locale, the timing, the wounds or the witnessed suspects.

Broadshouldered Man is suspect # 1 for Liz's killer in my book at least, he has access, they are alone in that location, and he is seen accosting her shortly before she is found dead. If we are comparing apples and oranges, Martha has more similarity to the the type of savagery the killer is known for than Liz has. I think you made a great point illustrating that there are non-Canonicals that fit the known profile of the killer better than Liz, and yet, being outside of that roughly 3 month rein of terror, they have been designated as merely unsolved murders. That Liz was a street whore, out after midnight, potentially soliciting,....(a claim that has no substantiation)...and killed by knife during that 3 month period, is I feel the criteria for her inclusion. Hardly a smoking gun.

All the best.

Oh, Michael! Still having all these voices whisper "shocking new revised facts" into your head? What are we to do with you?