Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Harry D]

One pattern was that there were quite a few murder cases that didn't get solved during that period.

Most of the contemporary police who worked on the case may have quibbled over the victim tally but most were in agreement that these murders were the work of a serial killer. Modern consensus has upheld this opinion and it's only a fringe group who believe these murders were completely unrelated, for motives that remain unclear to me. If a group of prostitutes are brutally murdered in the same location, over a short period of time, in similar fashion, common sense would dictate that this was the work of a lone killer. I'm not sure why that's so incredible, but I'd speculate it's because you've painted yourself into a corner with this multi-killer hypothesis and now you're obliged to defend your position against all reason.

At least you added disembowelling to the filter Harry..cause plenty of people had close knife encounters in that neighborhood at that time.

Yes they did, but how many had their carotid arteries severed and their bodies mutilated? From the Whitechapel murder file, this would apply to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly & McKenzie. Stride can be ruled in or out, but I find it much more believable that she was killed by a serial killer who wasn't finished for the night and would strike less than an hour later, than buy into some conspiracy theory where a club mistakes a woman for a spy, murders here, then invents a witness to cover it up.

Again, the crimes within the Unsolved Murder case were there without having a known link by killer for even 2 womens murders, let alone the amount we would need to discuss serial killer cases. Generally they kill more than 2, don't they.

Please rephrase this, Michael, as I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, you did narrow the field of knowledge down just a little when you said:
"First Ill address this......I have narrowed the kills of one man in these cases to 2.... perhaps 3 Jon, as Ive stated many times, which yes, means someone killed at least 2 women. The most base measure of a serial killer...2 or more victims. I believe thats what the known evidence suggests...and Ive found agreement with that conclusion by many here who by virtue of their work in this field are considered experts."

You wrote that you have adopted an opinion expressed by some who are considered "experts". This was offered as if the attribution to these "experts" somehow bolstered your opinion.
Yet I pointed out that it was not necessary to be an "expert" to hold that particular opinion.

The belief (because that is all it is), that no more than 3 victims fell, with reasonable certainty to the same killer, is not the exclusive opinion of "several experts", so I was failing to see why you chose to lean on that emphasis.

I really don't know what the hell youre talking about Jon,.. but what I actually said and you can read again is that I found I was in agreement with the experts Ive discussed this with, not that I found my opinion once I had those discussions. If that what you alluding to. As I said, Im not sure.

As for the "belief" that 2 or 3 were victims of one man, Its actually a conclusion based on 25 years plus of study and analysis, not something as amorphous as a mere "belief".

Jon, Its actually pretty clear from the first read of any Ripper storybook that there is nothing tangible or logical that can be used to connect at least 2 of the Canonical victims to the rest. Other than the boogyman proposition.

[Wickerman]

Despite the sarcasm Ill answer Jon...

Michael, you did narrow the field of knowledge down just a little when you said:
"First Ill address this......I have narrowed the kills of one man in these cases to 2.... perhaps 3 Jon, as Ive stated many times, which yes, means someone killed at least 2 women. The most base measure of a serial killer...2 or more victims. I believe thats what the known evidence suggests...and Ive found agreement with that conclusion by many here who by virtue of their work in this field are considered experts."

You wrote that you have adopted an opinion expressed by some who are considered "experts". This was offered as if the attribution to these "experts" somehow bolstered your opinion.
Yet I pointed out that it was not necessary to be an "expert" to hold that particular opinion.

The belief (because that is all it is), that no more than 3 victims fell, with reasonable certainty to the same killer, is not the exclusive opinion of "several experts", so I was failing to see why you chose to lean on that emphasis.

[Michael W Richards]

Wow.

Uh, how about throw some water or even a mug or two of beer on it Einstein.
Besides, it wouldn't be the murder scene any more would it Sherlock.

What? The woman had almost bled dry, do you realize what kind of volume that is? Secondly, they have to remove the body which would expose them to the risk of being caught by authorities while doing so, or at the very least being seen doing so.

Just so you know I believe its at least possible that they might have considered doing just that...using Diemshitz's cart and pony. I think Louis arrived before he said he did, (primarily because a witness was at her door from around 12:56-(Goldstein), until 1 am and she saw that no-one arrived at 40 Berner at 1am), and he and some others debated how to handle the mess they found themselves in.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Harry D;348153]I believe a series of unsolved murders where the victim's throats are cut, their bodies eviscerated, and organs excised, within a short space of time, in the same localized area, shows a definite pattern, yes.

One pattern was that there were quite a few murder cases that didn't get solved during that period.

There were plenty of violent men in that neighbourhood with access to blades, but how many of them would've gone around cutting throats and disemboweling women? If there were, then why did this type of murder suddenly spike in the autumn of 1888

At least you added disembowelling to the filter Harry..cause plenty of people had close knife encounters in that neighborhood at that time.

Again, the crimes within the Unsolved Murder case were there without having a known link by killer for even 2 womens murders, let alone the amount we would need to discuss serial killer cases. Generally they kill more than 2, don't they.

[Michael W Richards]

The point you appear to be sidestepping is, that people who are not considered 'experts' had long since arrived at the same opinion. So what value can there be to the point you were trying to make?
And, I do know from Stewarts own lips himself, that even he does not consider himself an 'expert'.

What exactly is an 'expert' Michael, maybe we can all learn something here?

Despite the sarcasm Ill answer Jon...someone who is well read on all the materials available on a subject, someone who has contributed to that wealth of knowledge by virtue of their own research and discoveries, someone who is intelligent and has experience in some form of a subject or subjects that is/are directly related to the primary subject matter, and someone who is intelligent enough to know that Hunters responses are merely for his own entertainment.

Im not introducing a rogue idea when I suggest that there are some within any known study subject that are better equipped, more adept mentally and more informed than others am I?

[c.d.]

"Uh, how about throw some water or even a mug or two of beer on it Einstein.
Besides, it wouldn't be the murder scene any more would it Sherlock."

Hello Abby,

"Einstein", "Sherlock". What's with the insults? Can't you make your point without them? That's just not cool.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"There were plenty of violent men in that neighbourhood with access to blades, but how many of them would've gone around cutting throats and disemboweling women? If there were, then why did this type of murder suddenly spike in the autumn of 1888?"

An even better question is if all it takes is violent men with access to blades then why is it that women with cut throats who had internal organs removed not a worldwide occurrence throughout history?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

An expert is someone who offers support for your theory with their theory.

Her blood ran down their gutter inside the gate for almost 20 feet. What...just suck that up with straws and spit into the street?

Wow.

Uh, how about throw some water or even a mug or two of beer on it Einstein.
Besides, it wouldn't be the murder scene any more would it Sherlock.

[Hunter]

An expert is someone who offers support for your theory with their theory.

[Harry D]

You believe cutting is the definitive variable that shows us serial activity?

I believe a series of unsolved murders where the victim's throats are cut, their bodies eviscerated, and organs excised, within a short space of time, in the same localized area, shows a definite pattern, yes.

Almost every man in that area had, or could get, knives. Many of them were criminals, some who were later revealed to be killers. All these bad guys stayed off the streets so one madman could own the neighborhood? Does that really sound plausible to you?

There were plenty of violent men in that neighbourhood with access to blades, but how many of them would've gone around cutting throats and disemboweling women? If there were, then why did this type of murder suddenly spike in the autumn of 1888?

[Wickerman]

And your beliefs whatever they are do not put you in the expert category Jon, just because some "others" agree with you. No offense intended..but your opinion isn't in that same league as Mr Evans's is.

There is more than a bit of doubt about Kelly...her murder has none of the prerequisite markers and all the signs of a killer known intimately by her. As for Stride....well lets just say Im glad people haven't started including victims with skinned knees or paper cuts in the Canonicals..yet.

The point you appear to be sidestepping is, that people who are not considered 'experts' had long since arrived at the same opinion. So what value can there be to the point you were trying to make?
And, I do know from Stewarts own lips himself, that even he does not consider himself an 'expert'.

What exactly is an 'expert' Michael, maybe we can all learn something here?

[Rosella]

Even 'experts' on this unsolved series of murders can be fallible and 'gasp' even outright wrong in their interpretations. It's always comforting if their conclusions fit in with your beliefs, as well. (I've done this myself, in examining other famous murders and reading accounts of them.)

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Well that brings up the question -- if the police concluded that Schwartz had lied to them and he was covering for the club, why didn't they do anything about it? In other words, go after the club?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Except that that response doesn't really explain why the club apparently felt the need to do what you believe they did.

c.d.

Do I really have to say again that these club members were seen as "low men" and Anarchists before any killings took place, and prominent witnesses in the Stride murder attack police with clubs the following year. Louis got pay for his work at the club...so did Morris...so did Wess in the backyard. So did Mrs D. So, likely, did Isaac K. All that flies out the window if the most obvious answer to who killed Liz was believed...that it was probably someone from that club. Israels statement was supposed to deflect that suspicion....and his absence from all Inquest records suggests his story wasn't supported fully by investigators. So what did they really believe?

Maybe the coppers created a myth to work clandestinely behind.