The Berner Street Con(spiracy)

[Tom_Wescott]

Sam and Simon,

What exactly is the conundrum? Stride was still bleeding out later when Edward Spooner examined her, etc. Had the Ripper killed her at 1am and was interrupted at that time, she still would have bled out slowly to still be bleeding when Spooner got there approximately six minutes later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

No, Tom, I don't 'know that'.
What I do know is that folks wore wide brimmed hats in the LVP to keep the rain off their shoulders; and that it was common practice to stuff newspaper in them to impede the water.
Or do you think she had eyes in the top of her head and liked to catch up on the news in her hat?

[perrymason]

Hi again all and thanks for highlighting the contentious issues with this "Singular" Event.

There is no need to disparage the man who was the most senior medical authority onsite,...his first line on the cut estimate shows that he believed the wound to be made within 20 minutes of his arrival......and he then extends that period with his second line, at most, 1/2 hour. Clearly demonstrating that in his opinion if he erred on his first time it would be a longer period...not shorter, that had elapsed between the cut and his arrival,... or earlier than his original estimate.

The evidence clearly doesnt support a Diemshutz interruption anyway you slice it....so I would suggest pro-Ripper arguments start looking for something else that might suggest an interruption. Cause the timings and the demeanor of Liz Stride in death for 100% certainty, do not support Jackus Interruptus. And one slice doesnt help that cause either.

Chris brings up an interesting point, who actually owned the yard and was responsible for it? Heres a thought......Wess, This man appears in a few spots in this case, and in a role that defies explanation,....like his being the very first witness statement on record at the Inquest...when by his own account, he had left before Liz is killed or found. He translates for Goldstein, as per TW, and he may have done so for Schwartz for all we know.

Out of all the witnesses, why would Wess be first?

Maybe because he was the name on the property deed? Or the property manager?

Best regards all.

[Tom_Wescott]

I think she wanted her hat to fit and not blow off her head in the wind, AP. One doesn't put nasty newspaper in a hat to keep their head dry. They'd end up with a hair full of paste. Fact is, it wasn't just her shoulders that were dry. And a hat can only do so much.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Since when does a bystander without any medical knowledge or experience come into play on when Liz was cut.....review Spooners testimony, he wasnt even sure when he was in the yard. Using his statement to determine a probable cut time is ridiculous.

You have a single credible senior medical opinion...I suggest you consider it well.

Best regards

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Dead people don't bleed.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

No one is disparaging any medical authority. I have no doubt that he gave his best estimate (using the knowledge of time of death in 1888).

And again we go back to Diemschutz being the only possible source of interruption. Just ain't so. Somebody coming out to use the privy or get some air. Could be any number of things including good ole paranoia on the part of Jack. Cut your losses (no pun intended) and move on. Liz was not the only woman on the street that night.

c.d.

[Cap'n Jack]

'Dead people don't bleed.'

Quite right, Simon, and I speculated a long time ago that Stride was not in fact dead at the time of her first examination by a medic.

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon,

You're not getting it. Diemschutz came home, realized (by matchlight) a woman was in the yard. It wasn't until he told everyone in the kitchen and everyone upstairs and they all came down with better light that they got a good look at her and noticed the stream of blood running from her neck, in the gutter, toward their steps. Plenty of time for her to bleed like that from the time the Diemster found her. And yes, dead people can bleed out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

I mean you no disrespect, but if you're simply willing to cut your losses and move on rather than bother to invest time, thought and logic in trying to understand a murder scenario which, as handed down to us, is palpably untenable, then why are you bothering at all to discuss the WM?

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

No one is disparaging any medical authority. I have no doubt that he gave his best estimate (using the knowledge of time of death in 1888).

And again we go back to Diemschutz being the only possible source of interruption. Just ain't so. Somebody coming out to use the privy or get some air. Could be any number of things including good ole paranoia on the part of Jack. Cut your losses (no pun intended) and move on. Liz was not the only woman on the street that night.

c.d.

The part in bold is incorrect.....unless you missed the gist here, no-one interviewed on those premises said that they were in the yard, the privy, checking out the stalls, or smoking by the gates. As for the likelihood Jack was "running scared", see murders 1 and 2.

And it would seem that most of these arguments forget the simple principle here.....Jack didnt get off on killing, he killed to get off on mutilating...one slice Liz shows us that for her killer, just killing was the only apparent goal for him.

Unless Jack has a transporter, changed his mind for only Liz as to why he kills, and how he kills....."may have been cut while falling"....I would recommend looking for known data and science to provide some insights....not science fiction.

Best regards

[c.d.]

Hi CD,

I mean you no disrespect, but if you're simply willing to cut your losses and move on rather than bother to invest time, thought and logic in trying to understand a murder scenario which, as handed down to us, is palpably untenable, then why are you bothering at all to discuss the WM?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Well again you lost me. If I don't understand the point that somebody was trying to make then I can't respond to it. That is why I asked you for clarification. Your response to my inquiry makes even less sense.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Simon,

You're not getting it. Diemschutz came home, realized (by matchlight) a woman was in the yard. It wasn't until he told everyone in the kitchen and everyone upstairs and they all came down with better light that they got a good look at her and noticed the stream of blood running from her neck, in the gutter, toward their steps. Plenty of time for her to bleed like that from the time the Diemster found her. And yes, dead people can bleed out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

If anything like the above actually happened, it was that they noticed the blood that had flown from her, not that it was actually still flowing Tom.

Since the evidence suggests that the Dr thought she might have been cut as early as 12:46 with his estimate, first fill the missing 14 minutes then try and introduce the interruption from Diemshutz. Fanny looked towards the gates at least once near 12:45, and she saw no-one, Liz was already likely in the yard.

So are her and Jack negotiating? Reminiscing about the good old days, sharing cashous, playing hide and seek?

Or does he just enter with enough time to cut once when Diemshutz pulls in....even though he would have heard the cart coming minutes before that point?

I dont mind resistance to answers that seem obvious to me, but I do mind farcical premises being used to counter logical analysis.

Best regards

[c.d.]

The part in bold is incorrect.....unless you missed the gist here, no-one interviewed on those premises said that they were in the yard, the privy, checking out the stalls, or smoking by the gates. As for the likelihood Jack was "running scared", see murders 1 and 2.

And it would seem that most of these arguments forget the simple principle here.....Jack didnt get off on killing, he killed to get off on mutilating...one slice Liz shows us that for her killer, just killing was the only apparent goal for him.

Unless Jack has a transporter, changed his mind for only Liz as to why he kills, and how he kills....."may have been cut while falling"....I would recommend looking for known data and science to provide some insights....not science fiction.

Best regards

Hi Michael,

I am operating on the assumption that Jack didn't want to be caught and hanged. Now if you accept that assumption, that helps explain a lot.

Known data and science haven't solved the question of who killed Liz or we wouldn't be debating it.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Since the burden of proof for an assumption that the club may have covered up some aspects of that night is being met with statements and circumstantial evidence that is on record,....how about detractors use the same burden of proof......prove Jack was interrupted. Prove that anyone who you think saw blood flowing in the dark was a qualified opinion.....prove that The Ripper entered at the last minutes using known data...prove that we have any reason to think he cuts victims once, and kills twice a night.

My opinion is offered with evidence that supports it...countering with only your opinion that anything could have happened isnt a counter at all.

Best regards