Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[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

[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,

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Rosella]

Surely, it depends on the newbie? We're not all fresh-faced innocent young things, you know! I walked around Ripper sites as a young teenager in the 1960's before much of it was gone for ever.

Starting with 'Autumn of Terror' too many years ago to count, I read about Jack and have built up a decent library in the decades since. I enjoy reading the different theories on the Forum but I wouldn't say I was swayed by any.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Hi Chris. Yes, I post less myself as well, although I'm procrastinating writing my second book so for the moment I'm posting more. Also, as you noted, I feel a sort of obligation because people think certain folks know more than they actually do simply because they post more than anybody else. This even leaks onto the facebook Ripper pages I post to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Surely, it depends on the newbie? We're not all fresh-faced innocent young things, you know! I walked around Ripper sites as a young teenager in the 1960's before much of it was gone for ever.

Starting with 'Autumn of Terror' too many years ago to count, I read about Jack and have built up a decent library in the decades since. I enjoy reading the different theories on the Forum but I wouldn't say I was swayed by any.

You consider yourself a newbie? That's odd.

Mike

[lynn cates]

knives

Hello Cris. Absolutely correct.

And Baxter, as well as Phillips, thought Stride MIGHT be a victim of the same hand as the first two IF one took efficiency of killing, etc, into account.

My sole focus has been on Phillips's observation about "character of the mutilations." In my opinion, clean cuts with an experienced knife man as opposed to messy ones by an amateur. Presumably, such differences are the result of varying knife pressures based on grip, etc.

I doubt that Phillips ever saw Polly's wounds. Likely, he and Baxter relied on information provided by Llewellyn--whatever that entails.

Cheers.
LC