Was Dutfields Yard Really Empty?

[Simon Owen]

Simon Owen writes:
"I'm surprised that people believe that Stride is not a victim : I think the most likely scenario is that Liz refused to co-operate with her killer or fought back , thus the Ripper had to kill her quickly and flee unsatisfied."

Right, Simon, ask yourself this: Even if she DID fight back or refused to co-operate (and there are NO signs of any struggle, just as there was nothing heard), what happened as he cut her neck and she fell to the ground? Did she fight back from a lying position? I wouldnīt think so.

But still, that killer did not mutilate her. Strange, is it not?

All the best, Simon!

Fisherman

Ah , I can answer this one ! My suggestion is that Duffield's Yard was not the place where Jack intended to murder Liz. It may have been dark and empty , but there was a noisy club meeting going on nearby and there was every chance of discovery there.

I think the Ripper was trying to persuade Liz to take him somewhere for a supposed ' sexual assignation ' ( where she would be killed ) , but she refused - hence her comment about ' some other night '. Thus I think the Ripper tried to force her to come with him somewhere , and she struggled or refused , leading to the scene witnessed by Israel Schwartz. After Schwartz was chased off , the Ripper had decided to kill Liz so he dragged her into the nearby Duffield's yard and cut her throat. Either she struggled and Jack feared detection because of this , or Jack heard Diemschutz approaching , or Jack feared someone might step out of the club - he did not have the time or inclination to mutilate Liz's body.

I think this is the reason why there was a second murder that same night - Jack was frustrated and angry about being denied the opportunity and the pleasure of mutilating Liz's corpse , so he looked for a second victim. And he really ' went to town ' on Eddowes. Mitre Square , being in the jurisdiction of the City Police , was the perfect location for a second murder if the Metropolitan Police had gone on alert following the discovery of Liz's body : it was a large , dark empty location and the perfect place for a murder.

Elizabeth Stride being a Ripper victim explains so much about the events of that night that I can't conceive that she could be otherwise. I wonder if people see the Ripper as an infallible , almost supernaturally competent killer because he wasn't caught and so they discount the Stride murder because it doesn't fit in with that image. I believe the discrepancies with the other murders can be explained , and that this is the occasion when the Ripper messed up.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;36729]Well, c.d., who says I overlook them? Here goes:

There were no signs of a struggle - strange

All depends on how fast and surprising the attack was - and I fail to see that the Ripper was the only one capable of fast attacks.

Liz only had one cut to her body and that was to her throat - strange

Do you think so? Then check out just how common a murder weapon the knife was, and just how common the method of cutting throats was, beginning with the THREE murder victims of that night.

Liz manages to hold on to the bag of cachous and the bag doesn't break - strange

All depends on how fast and surprising the attack was - and I fail to see... wait a minute, youīve had that answer already, havenīt you...?


The BS man kills Liz after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man - strange

If he was the Ripper, who admittedly put some effort into arriving and disappearing unnoticed - yes, then it is very strange indeed. Thanks for pointing it out!

All the best, c.d.!

Hi Fisherman,

I suppose that it is possible that the BS man could have the lightning like reflexes of a skilled Kung Fu master as opposed to a those of a drunken street thug but it appears as though Liz was caught off guard. That is a point that I really have trouble with. Are we to believe that Liz did not realize that she was in any danger after being thrown to the ground by the BS man? Liz was a veteran of the streets and for all she knew she might have believed that she had fallen into the hands of the Ripper. Yet there are no signs of a struggle. Now that I find quite strange.

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

She was not mutilated - strange.
She was found on her side - strange.
She was cut in a less deep manner - strange.
She seemed to be enjoying a love affair close in time to the murder - strange.
She was killed south of Whitechapel High Street - strange.
She was attacked a very short time before the murder - strange.

These things were, are and remain strange, Jon, long as we have no safe answers to why the came about. That is why Stride is often thought killed by somebody else than the Ripper, right?

The very fact that people fail to realize that these things are strange is, well...Strange!
That is if - IF - these people are not ... No, letīs forget it, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fisherman

I would have listed the lack of evidence of strangulation, and the Doctor`s remarks as to the size of the knife used as stronger pointers to a different killer.

But, if I may have a stab at your strange list:

Not mutilated - as previously noted, there was a witness to the assault.
On her side - no intent to mutilation (see above) so she was not turned on to her back
Severity of throat cut - no intent of mutilation (see above) But still a deep and jagged cut that partially severed her carotid and cut through her windpipe.
Love affair - the man in the pub was all over her. Best and Gardener was astonished at the way he was going at her.
South of the High St - Eddowes killed in the City
Time of attack - only Diemschutz was aware of the correct time as he rounded the corner into Berner St.

[Fisherman]

Well, c.d., who says I overlook them? Here goes:

There were no signs of a struggle - strange

All depends on how fast and surprising the attack was - and I fail to see that the Ripper was the only one capable of fast attacks.

Liz only had one cut to her body and that was to her throat - strange

Do you think so? Then check out just how common a murder weapon the knife was, and just how common the method of cutting throats was, beginning with the THREE murder victims of that night.

Liz manages to hold on to the bag of cachous and the bag doesn't break - strange

All depends on how fast and surprising the attack was - and I fail to see... wait a minute, youīve had that answer already, havenīt you...?


The BS man kills Liz after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man - strange

If he was the Ripper, who admittedly put some effort into arriving and disappearing unnoticed - yes, then it is very strange indeed. Thanks for pointing it out!

All the best, c.d.!

Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

She was not mutilated - strange.
She was found on her side - strange.
She was cut in a less deep manner - strange.
She seemed to be enjoying a love affair close in time to the murder - strange.
She was killed south of Whitechapel High Street - strange.
She was attacked a very short time before the murder - strange.

I would have listed aand the lack of evidence of any form of strangulation as

[c.d.]

Jon Guy writes:
"Not if he knew he had been seen assaulting her. Considering the number of Policemen in the vicinity he only had two or three minutes to get out of there safely."

If, John. If.
That does not change things, does it?

She was not mutilated - strange.
She was found on her side - strange.
She was cut in a less deep manner - strange.
She seemed to be enjoying a love affair close in time to the murder - strange.
She was killed south of Whitechapel High Street - strange.
She was attacked a very short time before the murder - strange.

These things were, are and remain strange, Jon, long as we have no safe answers to why the came about. That is why Stride is often thought killed by somebody else than the Ripper, right?

The very fact that people fail to realize that these things are strange is, well...Strange!
That is if - IF - these people are not ... No, letīs forget it, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

It seems strange that you find so many things strange but don't find other things to be so strange.

There were no signs of a struggle - strange
Liz only had one cut to her body and that was to her throat - strange
Liz manages to hold on to the bag of cachous and the bag doesn't break - strange
The BS man kills Liz after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man - strange

How some people overlook these little tidbits is well...ah, you know.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy writes:
"Not if he knew he had been seen assaulting her. Considering the number of Policemen in the vicinity he only had two or three minutes to get out of there safely."

If, John. If.
That does not change things, does it?

She was not mutilated - strange.
She was found on her side - strange.
She was cut in a less deep manner - strange.
She seemed to be enjoying a love affair close in time to the murder - strange.
She was killed south of Whitechapel High Street - strange.
She was attacked a very short time before the murder - strange.

These things were, are and remain strange, Jon, long as we have no safe answers to why the came about. That is why Stride is often thought killed by somebody else than the Ripper, right?

The very fact that people fail to realize that these things are strange is, well...Strange!
That is if - IF - these people are not ... No, letīs forget it, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hello Fisherman

But still, that killer did not mutilate her. Strange, is it not?

Not if he knew he had been seen assaulting her. Considering the number of Policemen in the vicinity he only had two or three minutes to get out of there safely.

[Fisherman]

Simon Owen writes:
"I'm surprised that people believe that Stride is not a victim : I think the most likely scenario is that Liz refused to co-operate with her killer or fought back , thus the Ripper had to kill her quickly and flee unsatisfied."

Right, Simon, ask yourself this: Even if she DID fight back or refused to co-operate (and there are NO signs of any struggle, just as there was nothing heard), what happened as he cut her neck and she fell to the ground? Did she fight back from a lying position? I wouldnīt think so.

But still, that killer did not mutilate her. Strange, is it not?

All the best, Simon!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mitch writes:
"JTR held MJKs head at the corner of the bed when he cut her head off. That was a deilberate act on his part. MJK wasnt sleep that way. No one sleeps that way."

That, Mitch, was not the question at hand, was it? It was all about you stating that the main objective for the Ripper when cutting Mary Kellys neck, was to bleed her off, to "drain" her.
He deliberately cut, yes. But that has never been an issue.
The fact that she was in the top corner of the bed when it happened has never been an issue either. It is abundantly clear.
What we can learn from her position when cut, however, is a different matter altogether. For some reason you seem to think that his cutting her at that top corner must imply that he wanted to bleed her off in a spot where the blood would be out of the way later on, so to speak.

That, Mitch, is something you are welcome to speculate. It is in no way impossible, but other speculations, grounded on other thoughts, may just as well hold the key to why it went down the way it did.

Mary Kelly was the only victim that died in her bed. Moreover, it seems obvious that she had undressed to go to bed. If we assume that she took somebody with her to that bed, someone who either undressed along with her, or who arrived as she was already in bed, and if we allow us the assumption that she took that person into her bed out of her own free will, then it seems reasonable that she may have crept into the bed before her companion did so.
That, Mitch, would leave her on the side of the bed closest to the partition, which in itīs turn means that her head would end up very close to the spot it was when she had her throat cut. It is not as if her head was pressed into that partition - we have the cuts in the bed linen between partition and head to tell us that.
All in all, this presents us with the apparent possibility that Mary may have lain down herself in the spot where she met her fate. There is no reason to assume that she was deliberately placed there to bleed her off.

Once again, I will press the point that although cutting the neck of a person means that there wil be less blood in the abdominal cavity afterwards, it is not as if that is something that happens immediately. If he needed to empty the bodies of blood, he would have to wait for a significant amount of time before setting about cutting in the stomach, and even then he would not face a cavity that was dried up or something like that. If you consider the fact that he cut off a piece of Eddowes apron, you will realize that he probably did so because he needed to dry his hands.

The only absolutely immediate effect reached by severing a neck deeply is that the one who suffers the cut is left with no possibility to cry out. Death and drainage are secondary effects, although they are safe such ones.
The one thing he could NOT risk was that his victims cried out, and THAT would be the more credible reason for severing the neck, than draining the victims of blood.

Your very own dude,
Fisherman

[Celesta]

I would guess the victims were pretty much passed out by the time JTR cuts the neck.

The FBI classified JTR as a disorganized killer. And I believe the main and probably the only reason they did that was because JTR killed and left his victims at the crimescene. Thats OK but thats a modern interpretation of the events. I believe the FBI made a mistake. Considering the overpopulation of the EastEnd. The lack of private transportation. The possibility that JTR lived in a doss house. ECT... I believe what JTR did was nearly the perfect crime at that time in History.
.

I think you have a point here, Mitch. He also may have lacked funds to do certain things he might have done if he had had them.

[Mitch Rowe]

For myself , I believe that Jack strangled or throttled his victims , firstly to subdue them and secondly to prevent them from screaming. Once they were rendered halfway insensible , then he would cut the throat in order to release as much blood from the victim's body as possible before he began mutilation.

To me , this suggests an organized killer able to both plan and carry out his killings in a logical way. Not a crazed lunatic like Kosminsky but an intelligent , sociopathic and probably charming murderer who was able to converse with his female victims and steer them to places where they could be dispatched with the minimum chance of interruption.

I'm surprised that people believe that Stride is not a victim : I think the most likely scenario is that Liz refused to co-operate with her killer or fought back , thus the Ripper had to kill her quickly and flee unsatisfied. He took his terrible revenge on Catharine Eddowes.

The real questions to ask are : why was there a Double Event that night , and why did the second murder take place over the City boundary not in the East End ?

I would guess the victims were pretty much passed out by the time JTR cuts the neck.

The FBI classified JTR as a disorganized killer. And I believe the main and probably the only reason they did that was because JTR killed and left his victims at the crimescene. Thats OK but thats a modern interpretation of the events. I believe the FBI made a mistake. Considering the overpopulation of the EastEnd. The lack of private transportation. The possibility that JTR lived in a doss house. ECT... I believe what JTR did was nearly the perfect crime at that time in History.

I guess the reason People discount Stride as a victim is because some People decided they knew how to interpret a crimescene when they knew very little about it. Oh.. I can read the replies now..."But who are you Mr. Rowe? What makes YOU such an expert? Where are your credentials????
And to that I say... I challenge and have challenged any World Class expert with a sound reputation to come to these boards and debate with me. I am not afraid. Im fully confident I know at least a little mor than nothing.

Now to the question of why a double event??
The most obvious answer is that Diemschutz probably ruined JTR plans of killing and mutilating Stride. JTR gets the hell out of there because he knows Diemschutz has already discovered the body. He dont want to be in a place where Police are on alert and running around looking for him. Sounds perfectly logical to me. Not disorganized but logical.

[Simon Owen]

For myself , I believe that Jack strangled or throttled his victims , firstly to subdue them and secondly to prevent them from screaming. Once they were rendered halfway insensible , then he would cut the throat in order to release as much blood from the victim's body as possible before he began mutilation.

To me , this suggests an organized killer able to both plan and carry out his killings in a logical way. Not a crazed lunatic like Kosminsky but an intelligent , sociopathic and probably charming murderer who was able to converse with his female victims and steer them to places where they could be dispatched with the minimum chance of interruption.

I'm surprised that people believe that Stride is not a victim : I think the most likely scenario is that Liz refused to co-operate with her killer or fought back , thus the Ripper had to kill her quickly and flee unsatisfied. He took his terrible revenge on Catharine Eddowes.

The real questions to ask are : why was there a Double Event that night , and why did the second murder take place over the City boundary not in the East End ?

[Mitch Rowe]

Mitch writes:
"What do we have in MJKs case? The blood didnt just happen to drain in the corner of the bed and room. JTR made that happen. It seems like JTR drained her blood. There was a reason beyond killing her that he did that."

Mitch, whenever somebody has her throat cut, severing all major blood vessels in the neck, you will end up with a picture where you can make the assumption that it "seems like" the victimīs blood has been drained.
But that does not go to show that the sole purpose of cutting that neck was to drain the blood, does it? If such was the case, you may argue that the guys handling the guillotine during the French Revolution did what they did simply because they wanted to drain the condemned ones of blood.

It is like stating that the Rippers objective when opening up the abdominal cavities of his victims was to subject the intestines to oxygen ? it follows, but it does not have to be the purpose.

The best, Mitch!
Fisherman

Dude...JTR held MJKs head at the corner of the bed when he cut her head off. That was a deilberate act on his part. MJK wasnt sleep that way. No one sleeps that way.

[Suzi]

Mitch writes:

"Cutting the neck so deeply like the other victims was probably considered work to JTR. "

This thread is getting stranger by the minute, I have to say! Besides, I do not think that he necessarily cut to bleed the women. My guess is that he wanted to ensure silence by severing the windpipe.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman-
I'd bowed out too but for what it's worth,I agree- that would seem the obvious thing...Gawd we'll be getting into the 'wine glass' bit next Hmmmmmmmmm obviously used by the killer to take a dainty slurp of 'the red stuff' before discarding the glass and sending it hurtling into Ripper mythology! (along with coins,top hats,capes,fog etc ) Sigh...........

Suzi