Liz Stride: Why a Cut to the Throat?

[drstrange169]

Hello Frank,

It’s an interesting point you raise and one dear to my heart.

When we don’t know, we have to canvas the options.

Option one: Schwartz’s statement is incorrect; in this case we all agree comparisons are useless.

Option two: Schwartz’s statement is correct; in this case we can say “the description does not match the drawing”.

Two options, both equally valid. Unfortunately, some people want to muddy the waters by mixing the two to suit their needs.

Fishman, for example, explians in his dissertation that we “must accept the testimony given by Israel Schwartz”. He adds that we must accept it because of the assiduousness with which Abberline did his job.

In the now infamous Swedish flip flop maneuver, we are now being told by supporters of Kidney killer conspiracy that Schwartz’s was unreliable and Abberline was incompetent.

And that is the whole point of my responding to these posts!
The fundamental inconsistency that is at the core of this theory, it has more holes in it than Saddam Hussein’s bunker.

To me, accusing someone of murder (be they dead or alive) is not something to be done lightly. I’m not necessarily against the idea of Kidney as a killer, I’m just looking for someone to come forward with a credible evidence to support the theory. So far all that has been offered is inconsistencies and evasions

Thanks for your time.

[Fisherman]

Dusty, my friend! I´m afraid I am going to have to tell you off here!

Your answer to Glenn involves a passage where you claim that you are not certain whether his stance is "misunderstanding or mischief".

It is a nice alliteration, it is witty enough - but if you are going to push a point like that, then why do you put yourself in a position where you must be asked that self same question?

You write about my dissertation "Piecing it together...", that I state that we “must accept the testimony given by Israel Schwartz”. But why not give the full context, Dusty, where I write:

"...sadly, Jack is the jigsaw piece that has the wrong shape in the Stride puzzle. Take him away, and we are suddenly able to piece it all together.
To do so, we must accept the testimony given by Israel Schwartz, a testimony that has been questioned over and over again."

Could it be that you did so because it fit your reasoning very much better, Dusty? For that it does! What it does NOT do, however, is add up to an honest reflection of what I wrote. Then again, it was perhaps never meant to?

If distorting other posters words and twisting what can be twisted is what you feel this thread or indeed these boards are about, then I must ask you to exchange with someone who has similar interests and goals.

English speaking courts of law crave "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" instead of "Some truth, a few bits of truth, and not all the truth". Semantic differences like these may seem irrelevant when you try to push a point. They are not, though.

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[Mitch Rowe]

I was reading from the Stride inquest last night. I was struck by the description of the cut to her throat that killed her. I got the sense that it was meant to kill her and that it was delivered by someone who knew exactly how to do it so that she died.

If the BS man was her killer and his motivation was that he was turned down by Liz for whatever reason, why did he not just cuss her out and be on his way? Why didn't he slap her around and let it go at that? And if he did kill her in a fit of anger, why did he not stab her in the chest, abdomen or face? If that had been the case, I could then see a slash to the throat to kill her and eliminate the possibility that she could identify him but here we have him going immediately for her throat and knowing just how to do it.

Also, why does he kill her after being seen by Schwartz and the pipe man?

The impression I came away with was that the cut to her throat was deliberate and done by someone who had done it before.

Any thoughts?

c.d.

If Liz were killed in a fit of anger we should expect some-one would have noticed and we should expect Strides killer to have been caught. Its very rare for a domestic argument to go from whispers or normal conversation to killing. Usually there will be fighting and yelling and screaming. Then the killer will say something like "Im going to kill you B*tch." and at that point the killer expects to get caught but does not care. Very emotional not very methodic.

As for Schwartz...I dont believe he ever saw anyone or perhaps he saw something in a different location. In my mind all Witnesses do is confuse the true facts. And in this case the true facts are that Stride was killed without anyone noticing wich points away from a domestic dispute.

Then on this very same night less than an hour later another woman is killed who is mutilated so badly one can only come the conclusion that JTR was the culprit.

At this point one should weigh the odds of two independant murders taking place within the same timeframe. The odds are very rare indeed.

So..Unless one killer is caught and convicted and one is sure the murders arent connected it would be reasonable to assume both are related.

Because of the timeframe and the fact that no one was ever caught or confessed/convicted for either murder it is far far more likely the two were related.

Now comes the time to introduce witness testimony.
Schwartz dont make sense.
However Diemschutz makes perfect sense. The killer was disturbed in his work and runs off to find another victim.
The only other sensible conclusion would be that JTR was going to kill some-one close to Berner street but the cops were all around because Strides body was found. JTR decides to move into a safer area and finds Eddowes. In that case the murders can be unrelated but the best and most logical choice is that JTR killed both.

JTR moves out of his territory that night and kills Eddowes. He had to have a reason. If he didnt kill Stride he must have known that something big happened around Berner Street.

But its far more likely there was only one "crazed' assassin like killer active that night and that killer was JTR.

[Fisherman]

Hi Mitch!

You write:
"Usually there will be fighting and yelling and screaming. Then the killer will say something like "Im going to kill you B*tch." and at that point the killer expects to get caught but does not care."

Well, believe it or not, but the shere number of domestic killings ensure that they are carried out in greatly varying accoustic forms, as well as resulting in very different levels of violence applied.

"Then on this very same night less than an hour later another woman is killed who is mutilated so badly one can only come the conclusion that JTR was the culprit."

TWO other women had their throats cut to the bone that night in London, Mitch. Few would argue that Jack did them both. Incidentally, all of this of course also applies to your wording "But its far more likely there was only one "crazed' assassin like killer active that night and that killer was JTR."

As for " in this case the true facts are that Stride was killed without anyone noticing wich points away from a domestic dispute", I think that as convenient as it may seem to rule Schwartz out, he actually is the guy who furnishes EXACTLY what you are looking for: Somebody who manhandles Stride, shouts and seems altogether like a man who is aquainted to her.

"If he didnt kill Stride he must have known that something big happened around Berner Street"

Really? Why is that?

The best, Mitch!
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Fishman,

Which Fishman do we have the pleasure of addressing to today?

The Fishman who believes Schwartz was so scared he couldn’t tell who shot the President of Sweden or the Fishman who believes Schwartz was so acutely accurate that each line can be analysed with fundamentalist zeal?

Re-reading the post in question, I’m happy enough with the context and content of the quotations to stand by every word of it, well maybe not the spelling mistake!

As both, the posts in this thread and your dissertation, are just a click away from each other there is no need to argue. On the off chance anyone is interested they can read both and make up there own minds.

This does seem like another attempt by you to stir the sediment but not to worry we can still see the bottom.




....(A cup of coffee and two headache pills later and Mr. Grumpy's hangover has disappeared.).....

Pay the above no mind, I’m being silly and sarcastic but looking through the waters you've so carefully clouded, I say again, there is a ...

“... fundamental inconsistency that is at the core of this theory, it has more holes in it than Saddam Hussein’s bunker.

To me, accusing someone of murder (be they dead or alive) is not something to be done lightly. I’m not necessarily against the idea of Kidney as a killer, I’m just looking for someone to come forward with a credible evidence to support the theory. So far all that has been offered is inconsistencies and evasions.”

Thanks for your time and patience.

[Fisherman]

We don´t have presidents in Sweden, Dusty - we have prime ministers.

Good thing you managed to swallow them headache pills, Dusty, for I was not very impressed by the start of that post of yours. When you write "I’m happy enough with the context and content of the quotations to stand by every word of it" it just goes to show how important it is to use the opportunity to set things straight.

You think that my theory has holes in it, and that should not surprise anybody. The day somebody comes up with a theory that has no holes in it, is the day these boards will be superfluous. The fact of the matter, though, is that I think that a theory involving a domestic kill on Stride´s behalf enables us to put plugs in a good number of holes that will otherwise be left to take in lots and lots of water.
As for your feeling bad on Kidneys behalf for my reasoning, I can only say that even if I had chosen not to mention him, my theory of domestic violence would pretty much have given me away anyhow. And I am not adverse, as I have pointed out at umpteen occasions, to BS man being someone else, so I am cutting him and you some slack. Also, I seem to remember that you did not mind all that much soiling Blackwells reputation? Different thing, perhaps?

Now, don´t forget to take them pills, Dusty! They´ll do you a world of good!

The best, Dusty!
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi All,

Bravo Mitch and Dusty, for their admirable logic and good sense in this sea of domestic murder twaddle.

Dusty’s point that Liz doesn’t appear to have gone to Sven Olssen with any sob stories of domestic abuse was a perfectly reasonable one. But I’m afraid Glenn’s response was incomprehensible, because it actually reinforced the point when I'm fairly sure he was trying to undermine it. Glenn posted:

That is nonsense. Why would this be Sven Olssons concern? Elizabeth went to the Swedish Church in order to collect financial aid, and Sven Olsson would not know about domestic disputes unless Stride told him. More likely she did not, since that would mean the authorites would look into it. Not a good thing if you want to scam the church on some money.

If Liz was after financial aid, what better way of getting it than being able to tell the person with the purse strings a true story of having been physically abused by Kidney the Wife Beater, that would check out if the authorities did look into it? Where’s the scam in that?? The only scam would have been if she had made false claims of abuse to obtain cash handouts. But it seems she did neither. The only reasonable conclusion is that there was no evidence to back up such a claim, and it either never entered her head to try, or she realised it would not be ‘a good thing’ to be caught cheating a system that was good to her.

Now then, Fisherman. What are we going to do with you?

You clarified one of your points by putting it back in context:

"...sadly, Jack is the jigsaw piece that has the wrong shape in the Stride puzzle. Take him away, and we are suddenly able to piece it all together.
To do so, we must accept the testimony given by Israel Schwartz, a testimony that has been questioned over and over again."

Now to me, this boils down to:

If we take the ripper out of Dutfield’s Yard, we are suddenly able to make perfect sense of Liz’s murder. But to do so we must also accept Schwartz’s testimony, and stop repeatedly questioning it.

If this is not what you intended to say, please tell me where I have misinterpreted your words.

Otherwise, I can see exactly the problem Dusty had with this. To accept Schwartz’s testimony, as it has come down to us, is to accept the warts-and-all translation and interpretation - all of it - because we could do nothing else. There is no way of guessing how honest or accurate Schwartz himself was to begin with, let alone what skills his interpreter had with language, nuance and meaning, to render a version that fairly represented the original words and intentions of the witness. Schwartz couldn’t tell him could he? His translated statement may as well have said: 'My hovercraft is full of eels and my story is full of sh*t'. He wouldn't have been any the wiser.

You can’t even begin to separate the reliable from the unreliable in the testimony you have without using sheer guesswork. So there’s no ‘must’ about any of it: you can’t tell us we ‘must accept’ that Schwartz witnessed what you interpret as a ‘domestic’, that turned to murder after he had left the scene, but tell us we must reject a description of the domestic abuser coming from the same source. You have to have a reason for rejecting the description, other than it doesn’t resemble a reliable picture of Kidney, the prime ‘domestic’ suspect, or that it’s likely to have been buggered backwards and forwards with a fish fork from the original.

It’s circular reasoning in action: Kidney’s your most likely ‘domestic’ candidate so Schwartz’s description of him must be unreliable, while his account of what happened is sound as a bell; Schwartz’s description was most likely altered in translation, but his overall account is sound, which puts Kidney in your frame.

Why not take Schwartz away instead, because you can’t rely on his testimony to give you your prime ‘domestic’ suspect? I guess it’s because there would be no evidence left at all, either physical or circumstantial, of any domestic dispute before Liz had her throat cut by an unknown killer for unknown reasons, less than an hour before it happened again to Kate, 15 minutes’ walk away.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

It seems that saner minds are beginning to prevail and recognize that the Perry Masons and Fishermen around here haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about and are more interested in convincing weaker minds of their fabricated fantasies than they are in getting to the truth. Goodonya Caz, Dusty, Mitch. If there's anyone out there still taking the theories of these two men and their cronies seriously, then shame on you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz!

It seems you are not updated on the thread. You write:
"
"...sadly, Jack is the jigsaw piece that has the wrong shape in the Stride puzzle. Take him away, and we are suddenly able to piece it all together.
To do so, we must accept the testimony given by Israel Schwartz, a testimony that has been questioned over and over again."

Now to me, this boils down to:

If we take the ripper out of Dutfield’s Yard, we are suddenly able to make perfect sense of Liz’s murder. But to do so we must also accept Schwartz’s testimony, and stop repeatedly questioning it.

If this is not what you intended to say, please tell me where I have misinterpreted your words.

Otherwise, I can see exactly the problem Dusty had with this. To accept Schwartz’s testimony, as it has come down to us, is to accept the warts-and-all translation and interpretation - all of it - because we could do nothing else. There is no way of guessing how honest or accurate Schwartz himself was to begin with, let alone what skills his interpreter had with language, nuance and meaning, to render a version that fairly represented the original words and intentions of the witness. Schwartz couldn’t tell him could he? His translated statement may as well have said: 'My hovercraft is full of eels and my story is full of sh*t'. He wouldn't have been any the wiser."

...and that goes to show that you missed out on the fact that my quotation from my own dissertation was there for the simple reason that Dusty used just a bit of it to make a point, leaving the part that did not suit his arguments aside. I don´t take kindly to such things. Have a thorougher read and you will see what I mean.

My stance is that many of the details involved in Strides death become a lot more easier to explain if you leave Jack aside. Bring him on the stage, and you are faced with all them questions:
-Why did he not cut deeper?
-Why no mutilation?
-Why is it that both he and BS man attacked Stride in a very short time?
-Why did BS man try to drag her into the street?
-Why did she lower her voice, crying out?
-Why was she not found on her back?
-Why did he go for such a dangerous venue, outside a crowded club?
-What did he do with all them minutes inside the yard it seems he was allowed?
-What on earth was she doing with the cachous when she was attacked?

...and so on and so on. It all becomes comprehensible when and if we accept Schwartz´testimony. Nothing more than that, Caz. But to me, it is quite enough.
My stance on Stride came about after many years as a firm believer of her being a Ripper victim. I´ve been where you are. Been there, seen that, done that. Not good enough, I´m afraid.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

" If there's anyone out there still taking the theories of these two men and their cronies seriously, then shame on you"

Yes, Tom, and so much more honour to you for being right on the issue! Like the bloody right hand, for example! And the interpretation of Blackwells wordings!

I´ll let you in on a secret, Tom: The Stride riddle has not been solved. I could be right. You could be right (yes, I admit that, and I do not tell people who believe in you to be ashamed - I think such things point to badmanners and lacking upbringing).

Your theory is feasible, Tom, as is mine.

So if people want to feel ashamed of their connections to you, they really should leave your theory aside and indulge in other things. They are there aplenty.

The bes ...Nah

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Fisherman,

Again, you twist my words. I did not say that I was right. I said that you are wrong. My theories are feasible because I rely on the facts. I don't build a castle of 'maybes' and 'could'ves'. I will say that I'm quite accurate on the matters of the bloody right hand and Blackwell's wording, in spite of your endless insistence to the contrary. Bad manners and upbringing indeed!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Again, you twist my words. I did not say that I was right. I said that you are wrong."

Proof for that, Tom?


"I will say that I'm quite accurate on the matters of the bloody right hand and Blackwell's wording"

Thats one wrong and one right, if I read it correctly.

On Strides bloody right hand you said that the coroner asked Lamb specifically if he had seen anything in her right hand, and that Lamb replied in the negative to that question. Neither of it was true.

On the Blackwell issue I may have to apologize to you. You may have been accurate there, for if I remember it correctly you firmly stated on the old boards that you could not make heads or tails of it. Can´t fault you on that one, Tom.

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

You're so sexy when you're humble, Fish. Now, stop with the sweet talk before Glenn Lauritz Andersson (author/historian) gets jealous.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

He would not get jealous, Tom. Has no reason to. He has just had his book on the Ripper published, and it has been received with great enthusiasm by papers, critics and bloggers. Far as I know, he fills his days bowing to enthusiastic crowds, begging for more (the crowds, not Glenn).

And rightly so; the book is a very good read, extremely comprehensive and very thorough. So for those of you who don´t see Glenn as a jealous mizer, but as a knowledgeable guy and a good fellow altogether, congratulations are due!

And yes, Tom, I like myself when I am humble too. It is a good feeling. You should try it sometime!

And by the bye, writing a book on historic crimes is what makes you an author/historian. You should try that too!

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Dusty,

For heaven's sake, are we actually reading the same testimony????Nor do I understand which sources you use for your very strange interpretation of Kidney's so called statement at the inquest.

I have used the Times (which is the one cited in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion/Sourcebook) and the Daily Telegraph, both published on 4 October, and although they differ in some details they certainly correspond on the rather pathetic and unsympathetic behaviour of Kidney. The figure I 'cut for Kidney; a “boasting idiot, busybody”, “making himself look important”' is NOT at odds with the nature of his testimony.
If you believe that, you simply haven't read it. You're the one who's editing Kidney's words, not me. And God knows why.

'RE: Kidney the boasting idiot.

I can only guess you are referring this comment,

“She always came back again. I think she liked me better than any other man. I do not believe she left me on Tuesday to take up with any other man.”'

No, that is NOT what I refer to.
If you've really read Kidney's sad excuse of a testimony, then it should be obvious to even a five-year old how Kidney is repeadetly trying to make himself look important by claiming he 'has information about the killer'. Regardless how many times coroner Baxter and inspector Reid are trying to force him to elaborate on the issue - and God knows at least Baxter is trying, but to no avail - Kidney is only repeating that 'if he had access to 100 men the murderer would be caught' or 'I believe I could catch the man if I had a proper force at my command'.
When the court finally makes a last attempt to force him to reveal his famous 'information', he retracts and says 'No, I'll keep that to myself'.

Now, if you're in the dock during the coroner inquest that's investigating the murder of your fiancée and you use that for your own purpose in order to act like a smartass, that's the behaviour of a boaster and a busybody - and most likely a drunken idiot. I don't NEED to destroy Kidney's character because Kidney does it for me.
Not to mention the fact that Kidney either refuses to answer the majority of the questions he receives or delivers completely irrelevant answers. Even a superficial read reveals that the inquest is a joke to him.

Why do you think Inspector Reid asked Kidney if he was drunk when he went to the police station? Because he was realizing what kind of airhead they had in front of them.

As for Kidney being guilty of the murder, well that is impossible to say, but if the Ripper didn't commit the crime, then Kidney - as the closest male companion and living with the woman - he, like in any normal murder investigation, has to be the prime suspect since the male companion generally is the perpetrator. There is nothing singular about it. And Kidney's character traits as well as his nonsense and lies at the inquest (of course he never had any information about the killer at all) doesn't really speak in his favour.
I have read many witness testimonies in my day, but Kidney's mst be one of the worst and most transparent ones. And no doubt he almost made coroner Baxter tear out his own hair with the root in frustration.

And now I have to lie down - my back is killing me from bowing to the enthusiastic crowds all week.
(Thanks for the praise, Fisherman - couldn't get a better PR man if I wanted to )

All the best