The Berner Street Con(spiracy)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Believe it or not, you're still alive during the process of dying.

Whether Stride was dead or in the process of dying is of huge importance when it comes to our understanding of what happened in Berner Street.

People react very differently to the dying than they do to the dead.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Hi Simon,

For what it is worth, Diemschutz believed that the killer was still in the yard when he entered due to the continuingly odd behavior of his pony.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, then she must have been dead, because everyone reacted as though they were looking at a dead person. I would like to know the full facts too, Simon. But that isn't always possible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

``No you arent assuming that at all...you are assuming the man who gained a nickname by Ripping women after killing them might only just kill even when he can hear someone coming, and that he might make a single cut, cut the victim while falling this time, and that it frustrates him so much he does to Kate everything he has already done to 2 consecutive victims before Liz, and just added facial cuts to show his "frustration".``


yes this is true, the ripper wouldn't have bothered if he heard a cart comming along, so did the ripper escape the yard just in time, or was he still in there?.......

my guess is the ripper wouldn't have retreated back into the yard if he heard it early enough, but instead; ran out as fast as he could...........this wasn't seen, well maybe Mrs Mortimer wasn't watching all the time....

but did the Ripper hear the cart from around the corner in dutfields or did he hear it after it had turned the corner into Berner st and it was too late to leg it!!!!!!!!!

aaaaahhhh, now lets think about this, he is around the corner in the yard and the cart is comming along around yet another corner, before entering Berner st, i think fairclough st....whatever, it's travelling slowly.

morris eagle could hear, from the first floor window, strains of a friend singing in russian (about 12.40) , he went upstairs and joined in the singing..we now could have 2 men singing upstais....so there could be quite a lot of noise comming from the open window upstairs....you could probably hear other drunken people too..almost definitely...boozed up men are pretty damn loud!

it is quite possible that the ripper didn't hear the cart until it was too late to leg it........... yes indeed

but uuum, ``we have a slight problem Houston``......... Morris Eagle didn't see Stride before entering the club, so where the hell was she ... flipping heck!

none of this makes sense......Goldstein saw nothing too, at 12.55....where was Stride!!.........Stride went missing from 12.45 or 12.40 to 1am....mrs Mortimer saw nothing !! Morris Eagle, if Stride was already dead, would've either stumbled over her or maybe have seen her too, someone is either very blind, lieing, or the ripper came along after 12.55 and was hiding in the back of the yard.... but again i say, where was stride, because if so, Goldstein should've seen her at 12.55

finally, the killer could be a club member and Perry could be right, a club member makes the most sense, because the biggest problem we have is Stride vanishing around 12.40 or 12.45............ if someone sais to me the Ripper killed her at 12.56 then i'll have to say, where the hell was she BEFORE this, because we have 3 people that should've seen her!

.............. now that's about it, i did warn members here to steer well clear of this murder, it's just a total and utter mess!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Malcolm,

I think you are making more of a mess of the situation than is really necessary. Granted, you're not as far off the rocker as others, but it needn't be so complicated.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about supposed conspiracies regarding the Berner Street murder, so I'll try to get back on topic with a post soon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mr.Hyde]

Quite sure he was partially deaf and did not hear the cart coming.

[Tom_Wescott]

Le Grand and Schwartz

Returning to my earlier posts and more solid ground regarding Le Grand and his procuring of Matthew Packer's services in thwarting the investigation.

Regardless of Le Grand's motive in fashioning a fictional suspect, it forces the question 'Did he do this with more than one witness?' The only possibility that made sense was Schwartz, so I pursued this idea for a while. In doing so, I found it intriguing that Packer's ever-evolving timeline never stretched up so far as 12:30am, which would make sense if Schwartz were also on Le Grand's payroll. I eventually abandoned the notion that Schwartz was working with Le Grand based on the fact that Pipeman and Le Grand were practically twins and it would not make a lick of sense to send a man to the police with your description.

What DOES make sense is to pay Packer to say it was someone else if you happened to BE the man Schwartz saw.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

And it would seem that most of these arguments forget the simple principle here.....Jack didnt get off on killing,

Says who?

Out of all the quick and quiet ways of killing a person, ones that could've spared Jack more time to work on the body, he chooses to use strangluation and throat slashing as his preferred methods.

He could've just broke their necks, bludgeoned them, whatever. But he chose to use not one but two ways that, if things had gone wrong, could've facilitated his victims' escape and perhaps even his capture. With strangulation, one of the women could've fought him off, and with the throat cutting Jack had to have whipped his blade out of somewhere on his person, which also could've potentially bungled things.

Obviously the actual murder would be the thing he would have to have gotten 'out of the way' first if he wanted to rip their stomachs open. But that doesn't prove that he didn't get a degree of satisfaction out of actually killing his victims.

I'm not saying I buy into any of that personally, but I do think the actual killing gets overlooked a lot.

[Nothing to see]

Says who?

Out of all the quick and quiet ways of killing a person, ones that could've spared Jack more time to work on the body, he chooses to use strangluation and throat slashing as his preferred methods.

He could've just broke their necks, bludgeoned them, whatever. But he chose to use not one but two ways that, if things had gone wrong, could've facilitated his victims' escape and perhaps even his capture. With strangulation, one of the women could've fought him off, and with the throat cutting Jack had to have whipped his blade out of somewhere on his person, which also could've potentially bungled things.

Obviously the actual murder would be the thing he would have to have gotten 'out of the way' first if he wanted to rip their stomachs open. But that doesn't prove that he didn't get a degree of satisfaction out of actually killing his victims.

I'm not saying I buy into any of that personally, but I do think the actual killing gets overlooked a lot.

How do you know that Jack knew how to kill like that? He had his way, with a backup. You're quite right. Jack strangled, then slashed. It worked for him. No one got up and ran after Jack had killed them. Stride was no exception.

[perrymason]

How do you know that Jack knew how to kill like that? He had his way, with a backup. You're quite right. Jack strangled, then slashed. It worked for him. No one got up and ran after Jack had killed them. Stride was no exception.

What the evidence is in the first 2 Canonical victims is that the women were soliciting, they were likely picked up by the murderer, he got them lying on the ground with little or no obvious struggle...(strangulation is probable in Annies case, but the method used is unclear...we assume they were unconscious or semi so), they are placed flat on their back, legs opened..he cuts the throats almost to the point of decapitation, then proceeds to the part for which he killed in the first place, abdominal mutilations and organ theft.......(see Coroner comments at Polly Nichols Inquest).

We do not know Liz was soliciting, or whether her killer met her or just jumped her from the dark,... but she was choked with her scarf, possibly cut while falling, and lay on her side untouched from that point on. No physical evidence exists that suggests an interruption, nor an incomplete action.

The assumptive flexibility that this killer had, envisioned by some, is a product of the inclusion of dissimilar murders and opinion, not demonstrated style variations by one killer.

Liz Strides murder and Mary Janes murder have little in common with Pollys murder, Annies, or Kates. To suggest they were all just one man implies flexibility on his part...and since the only proof that they are linked to one man are authority guesses,...there is no evidence that demands that conclusion.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Liz Strides murder and Mary Janes murder have little in common with Pollys murder, Annies, or Kates.

Not wishing to launch this off-thread, Mike, but you really can't go on bracketing Mary Kelly in the same "little in common with the rest" category as Liz Stride. Kelly's murder had arguably much more in common with Eddowes' and Chapman's than with that of Nichols, yet most people wouldn't exclude the latter.

[Tom_Wescott]

Taking ALL things into consideration, Mary Kelly's murder has less in common with the rest than Stride's, but I wouldn't exclude any of them offhand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Taking ALL things into consideration, Mary Kelly's murder has less in common with the rest than Stride's

I find that rather baffling, Tom, but let's move on...

[Malcolm X]

Taking ALL things into consideration, Mary Kelly's murder has less in common with the rest than Stride's, but I wouldn't exclude any of them offhand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

you what ! ..........run that by me again Tom, did you really post that in

because Stride is the odd one out and Kelly is simply an indoors version of Eddowes.......and you dont need me to explain why, it's common knowledge

[Tom_Wescott]

Yep, I posted that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott