Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[The Good Michael]

Tom, you said, "Post less and research more."
I agree entirely. And of late I'm posting less and less. Not only because I'm trying to maximize my scant available time with reading and research, but because after years of the same old circular arguments with the same ol' people, one realizes it's fruitless to continue. Sometime one feels compelled to do so purely because new people have arrived that you hope don't get started on the wrong foot.

Yes. This is true and I feel the same and post less as well. You can take 2 or 3 months off, come back and still read the same stuff about how someone is sure a killing was done by a leftie (not a liberal), and how so and so is the best suspect ever as if your moment of ephiphany becomes something to defend with your life. It isn't, and I feel sorry for newbies who get the things rammed down their throats from the same 7 or 8 people.

Mike

[Hunter]

Hi Tom,

Dr. Percy John Clark, Phillips' former assistant and the man who took over Phillips' practice after the latter's demise, stated in a 1910 ELO interview that he believed that it could have been only three murders committed by the same hand. While Phillips himself did write in his PM report on Alice McKenzie that he did not believe all of the Whitechapel murders were committed by the same individual, he didn't elaborate on which ones or how many that may be.

...After careful and long deliberation I can not satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Whchl. murders" is one man.
I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion. This noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter.
I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favor of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances & other evidence considered.

In other words, what Phillips was saying was, "Here's my opinion based upon what I physically saw. Other evidence gathered by the police investigation when added to it might point to a different conclusion, but that is beyond my capacity and up to those who's investigations encompass this to decide."

Phillips only commented on what he observed.

Holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion solely on professional grounds, based upon my own observations. For this purpose I have ignored all the evidence not coming under my own observation.

And that's why I posed the question to Mike the way I did. He has repetitively posited that Phillips linked the Nichols and Chapman murders. He did not. When coerced by Baxter to do so he refused because he had not seen or examined Mary Ann Nichols. It was Baxter and Baxter alone who linked the two murders and he had a theory to peddle... Imagine someone making assumptions based on a theory. Certainly not when it comes to this subject.

As far as I'm concerned, Bagster Phillips has been one of the most misunderstood and misquoted persons involved in this saga. All kinds of theories regarding the medical evidence have been presented. Fine. Just get some basic facts straight. Of course, if it's not helpful to one's own predilictions... then twist it or ignore it.

There is much about these events that is uncertain and speculative. We're all forced to speculate to some degree. Its an unsolved case - a mystery. But much misinterpretation of real facts continue to be spouted about because it fits a predetermined theory or assumption to do so.

Tom, you said, "Post less and research more."
I agree entirely. And of late I'm posting less and less. Not only because I'm trying to maximize my scant available time with reading and research, but because after years of the same old circular arguments with the same ol' people, one realizes it's fruitless to continue. Sometime one feels compelled to do so purely because new people have arrived that you hope don't get started on the wrong foot.

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Payne

[Tom_Wescott]

Which two of the four he saw were linked by Phillips?

Perhaps he's talking about a different Dr. Phillips, but I seem to recall Dr. George Bagster Phillips felt three murders could be linked by medical evidence alone (I believe it was Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly) and conceded that the other murders were likely from the same hand as well, but couldn't conclude that on medical evidence alone. If this is mistaken, I'd welcome a correction.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

I see a real difference between someone making contact with a victim while the pubs are still open or have only recently closed, and someone doing so an hour later when the streets are at their quietest and will remain so for 3 or 4 hours.

Although it's in the City, Mitre Square is a few steps from the main E/W thoroughfare that runs past Castle Alley, Osborn Street, George Yard, Goulston Street and Buck's Row. It's a personal view, but having walked these streets for many years, I feel Berners Street is the geographic anomaly.

MrB

The anomaly is that all these murders happened so close together and in such a short span of time. There was less heat around Berner Street and Mitre Square at the time. Perfect choice for murder spots. Then when the heat was everywhere, he kills indoors.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

Hi Tom,

I see a real difference between someone making contact with a victim while the pubs are still open or have only recently closed, and someone doing so an hour later when the streets are at their quietest and will remain so for 3 or 4 hours.

Although it's in the City, Mitre Square is a few steps from the main E/W thoroughfare that runs past Castle Alley, Osborn Street, George Yard, Goulston Street and Buck's Row. It's a personal view, but having walked these streets for many years, I feel Berners Street is the geographic anomaly.

MrB

[Bridewell]

Good talk-totally agree.

So do I.

It's just occurred to me that, if Eddowes & Stride were linked by a common killer, one reason for a second murder might be to use the second to distract attention from the location of the first. What I am suggesting, and with no particular suspect in mind, is that, if the killer had dispatched Stride uncomfortably close to his own home, he might have thought it clever to kill again really quickly some distance away. I don't propose this as anything more than idle speculation so I'm quite happy to have it considered and dismissed if not valid.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Mr. Barnett. There's absolutely no significance in the geography, at least not as far as victimology. That has been imposed by researchers and it's perhaps the least convincing of their arguments (aside from the outright mistruths). Stride was killed within a short walk of the other murders but in an area not yet absolutely crawling with coppers. Same with Eddowes, who as you know was killed in a different police jurisdiction altogether.

Both Stride and Eddowes were killed well earlier than the other victims, so what holds true for Stride holds true for Eddowes. If there is any significance to the different times it's that the killer intended to kill two women that night so left himself plenty of time to do so. However, it's also likely he was on the prowl at the same time on the nights the other women were killed but the right moment didn't present itself until later.

I think it's also likely Stride and Eddowes were killed away from the other victims to help avoid capture. Smith and Tabram were killed months apart but on the same patch. However, following Tabram the eyes were out in that area, so next murder is committed in Bethnal Green. Coincidence? Quite possibly, but maybe not. As I've said many times, I believe the Ripper relied on more than sheer luck to keep from getting caught. I think he was smart.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Good talk-totally agree.

[Hunter]

Phillips saw 4 Canonical victims in death. He saw evidence that 2 were likely linked by A killer.

Which two of the four he saw were linked by Phillips?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

Do you not see any significance in the earlier time of Strides' death ?

Or in the killing being in St Geo. E. as opposed to north of the Whitechapel Road?

MrB

Hi Mr. Barnett. There's absolutely no significance in the geography, at least not as far as victimology. That has been imposed by researchers and it's perhaps the least convincing of their arguments (aside from the outright mistruths). Stride was killed within a short walk of the other murders but in an area not yet absolutely crawling with coppers. Same with Eddowes, who as you know was killed in a different police jurisdiction altogether.

Both Stride and Eddowes were killed well earlier than the other victims, so what holds true for Stride holds true for Eddowes. If there is any significance to the different times it's that the killer intended to kill two women that night so left himself plenty of time to do so. However, it's also likely he was on the prowl at the same time on the nights the other women were killed but the right moment didn't present itself until later.

I think it's also likely Stride and Eddowes were killed away from the other victims to help avoid capture. Smith and Tabram were killed months apart but on the same patch. However, following Tabram the eyes were out in that area, so next murder is committed in Bethnal Green. Coincidence? Quite possibly, but maybe not. As I've said many times, I believe the Ripper relied on more than sheer luck to keep from getting caught. I think he was smart.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

Hi Mike,

I'm still reeling from your proclamations on another thread that Mary Kelly was an abandoned victim of the Thames Torso killer. I mean wow. I will give you marks for originality on that one because your whole 'Stride was killed by anyone but Jack the Ripper' routine is anything but original. So if I were you I'd haunt the Kelly threads.

But for those reading these pages and wondering if there's any real reason to suspect that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim (and you folks are the only reason I still put up with this crap), the answer is 'yes' but only for two reasons: 1) she wasn't abdominally mutilated, and 2) her killer was never caught and named. Anything else you read is either irrelevant or simply untrue. The weight of the evidence, now as it was then, is that she was a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Do you not see any significance in the earlier time of Strides' death ?

Or in the killing being in St Geo. E. as opposed to north of the Whitechapel Road?

MrB

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom.

". . . Brown's professional opinion that Eddowes wasn't a Ripper victim. Her wounds were obviously quite different from Chapman's, but why is that never brought up?"

Cough, cough. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

By never, I of course meant by anyone but you, Lynn.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Brown

Hello Tom.

". . . Brown's professional opinion that Eddowes wasn't a Ripper victim. Her wounds were obviously quite different from Chapman's, but why is that never brought up?"

Cough, cough. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Still reeling...

Hi Mike,

I'm still reeling from your proclamations on another thread that Mary Kelly was an abandoned victim of the Thames Torso killer. I mean wow. I will give you marks for originality on that one because your whole 'Stride was killed by anyone but Jack the Ripper' routine is anything but original. So if I were you I'd haunt the Kelly threads.

But for those reading these pages and wondering if there's any real reason to suspect that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim (and you folks are the only reason I still put up with this crap), the answer is 'yes' but only for two reasons: 1) she wasn't abdominally mutilated, and 2) her killer was never caught and named. Anything else you read is either irrelevant or simply untrue. The weight of the evidence, now as it was then, is that she was a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Why didn't the medical experts agree that Liz and Kate were killed by the same person, and why does the man who examined the most Canonical victims state that Strides murder is unlike the most recent kill attributed to this Jack fellow?

As to your rebuttal;

1. The number of people based on the census in Hanbury is less than the number of people hanging about the club after the meeting..the source for the second part is Wess himself. Therefore, both of your statements are refutable with facts.

2. If Stride was cut "while falling", there need be no "flow" commencement until she has hit the ground, we are talking about partially severed arteries and milliseconds in timing.

3.These are all just knife crimes, despite your desire to create a more restrictive and granulated filter. Im glad you keep mentioning the single cut....very much a key differentiator in Strides murder from the previous kills.

Ill skip to your summation.....to hold dear a premise that is based purely upon conjecture, assumptions and guesswork may seem a pragmatic approach to problem solving to you, but it holds little appeal for people who seek the actual truth about the murders, not a story about a serial killer named Jack the Ripper.

And in the case of absent evidence Tom, if there is no evidence whatsoever that the killer of Liz Stride was in any way hindered or halted from what he was doing, then why in heavens name should we assume there was an interruption? Because we want this to be the same guy who usually guts the victims after the neck cutS. Liz Strides murder is what it is, a murder, short and violent.

Unfortunately for her, and her descendants, the timing and location of it made her one of Five women whose lives, for 125 years, have been dragged through the mud by wannabe investigators.

The evidence is Liz was just killed, and the evidence is that Polly and Annie were killed so that the killer could.........

Cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

I brought up documented facts that directly contradicted what you stated empirically, so lets not diminish the importance fact vs imagination has.

You really think you contradicted me with documented fact? You don't want to go there, Mike.

Again, it is not a fact that Stride was on the ground although you state it like it was, when all the time we have the senior medical expert stating it could have been done "while falling". And in Eddowes case "all deep structures were severed to the bone.... nicking cartilage". To say they were the same kind of cuts just isn't accurate.

The blood evidence is quite clear where her neck was when she started to bleed.

Stats on crimes with knives show us that one of the most common lethal weapons used at that time for assault was a knife. And What we see on Double Event night is someone murdered and abandoned, and someone murdered and mutilated, one in the city, one in the East End.

Stop moving goal posts. I was not talking about knife murders. Those are a dime a dozen. I was speaking specifically about women murdered in dark corners by some unknown method of rendering them unconscious and then cleanly killing them with a single cut to the throat. Stride and Eddowes are identical in these most singular and crucial of aspects.

Is the same street argument also the one to use when linking Mary and Annie? And items found near the body when linking Annie with Kate? How about the ;ittle details that suggest the killer was after women who were soliciting at the time, based on the first 2 Canonicals? Is that irrelevant? Is it relevant that we do not know that Liz, Kate and Mary were doing the same thing at the time they meet their killer? Relevance its seems is very subjective.

I completely agree that may not be relevant in terms of who killed them, but as far as victimology you can't get much more similar than these women.

Ill just say that the lack of mutilation, in fact the lack of any evidence that the killer as much as touched the deceased after that single cut, without any viable explanation such as verified interruption, (killer seen fleeing), or any evidence that would lead one to conclude the killer of Polly and Annie would not always cut the throat twice and then mutilate the abdomen, is enough to remove her from a Group that is assumed to have been killed by someone who had the aforementioned tendencies. The place, (East End), and the timing, (the Fall of 1888) are merely historical notations of the event,..not a reason for pairing her murder up with another.

You keep referring to the absence of evidence. The knife was also absent from the scene, so why do we assume one was ever there? The knife wound. Why did the police conclude Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same hand? The weight of evidence dictates it. Still does. So, why didn't the Ripper mutilate Stride? Only he would know that. Was he interrupted? Maybe. Was he intimidated by the club noise? Maybe. Had he already intended to kill a second woman and thus wanted to remain bloodless? Maybe.

Would a logical mind conclude that Stride and Eddowes were most likely killed by the same man? Absolutely. Does that make it ascertained fact? Not at all. Just as it's not an ascertained fact that Eddowes was killed by the same man who murdered Chapman. Nor Mary Kelly.

So, am I convinced Stride was a Ripper victim? Not at all, although I know it appears that way from my posts. But has my careful study of the facts over the course of many years revealed that the vast majority of reasons used to discount her are not factually accurate? Sadly, yes. Therefore the likelihood remains now as it did in 1888. That Stride was a Ripper victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott