The Statements of Morris Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz

[perrymason]

Rather than categorizing this murder by using what is assumed he might have done given more time, Id rather focus on what actually happened to the woman and what circumstances may be relevant in her murder.

Liz Stride had her throat cut to kill her. There is nothing else present in the evidence to conclude that any other activity was intended or interrupted. She appeared "as if gently lain down", and lay in the position she fell in, on her side. She was untouched.

Personal relationships, mitigating factors and circumstantial evidence all would allow for the killer to be Michael Kidney or someone else in her personal life, what doesnt allow for it is the attitude that everything valid has been fully explored over the 120 years thats passed.....sorry as I write this its 121 years.

I can only speak for the 3 years that Ive been in the study here, but perspectives on these murders have some pretty entrenched views on what we are looking at as a whole......i.e., as a serial killing spree. I dont see that here at all....never have.

I have never seen convincing evidence that suggests 1 man killed all 5 Canonicals myself, but some evidently feel they have.

Maybe its worthwhile still looking at these cases as independent unsolved murders, even if others have before us.....because that is in fact all that they provably are.

All the best

[The Good Michael]

There is nothing else present in the evidence to conclude that any other activity was intended or interrupted.

Being inconclusive goes either way. I guarantee that there have been millions of crimes throughout history that have been interrupted for all sorts of reasons, including changes of heart, intrusions, not having the necessary equipment, and any hundred other reasons. Your point is taken, but it isn't the final word by any means.

Cheers,

Mike

[perrymason]

Being inconclusive goes either way. I guarantee that there have been millions of crimes throughout history that have been interrupted for all sorts of reasons, including changes of heart, intrusions, not having the necessary equipment, and any hundred other reasons. Your point is taken, but it isn't the final word by any means.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

I feel that based on the absence of evidence that could be used to substantiate an interruption of activities by the killer in Dutfields Yard, we do in fact have the obligation of objectivity usage when assigning her murder to anyone....let alone a high profile killer of the period in question who is infamous for what he does after he kills women.

Guilt is something that must be proven....innocence must be assumed until that has been done, thats why I say that Jack the Ripper should be seen as not guilty of the murder of Liz Stride..... at this point in time. There is evidence in other Canonical murders though that demonstrate consistency in approach and methodologies and resulting injuries to the remains of the dispatched, so I have no problem temporarily assigning more than one murder to a single killer in the Ripper series.

Absence of evidence, as in this case of an alleged interruption, should be the deciding characteristic in the decision to add Liz Stride to Jack the Ripper, in my opinion of course.

Cheers Michael

[The Good Michael]

Michael,

We aren't out to prove anyone's guilt here, only the probability of this being performed by the same killer. As much conviction as you might have, and I've seen it grow over the years, someone may have just as much in the direction and see very reasonable credibility. It's a standoff, I'm afraid, and conviction isn't going to change that.

Cheers,

Mike

[perrymason]

Michael,

We aren't out to prove anyone's guilt here, only the probability of this being performed by the same killer. As much conviction as you might have, and I've seen it grow over the years, someone may have just as much in the direction and see very reasonable credibility. It's a standoff, I'm afraid, and conviction isn't going to change that.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

Ive had this philosophical issue raised before, and youre not the only one who has espoused it, but when there is no evidence that something has occurred, it not equally probable that it did or didnt occur.

The other case was with Mary Kelly.....the position being that even without any trusted evidence that suggests Mary Kelly left her room again after 11:45am, its still equally probable that she did or didnt.

If you want to support a position that says even though Liz Strides throat cut is dissimilar to the other Canonicals, and even though she remained untouched after she had fallen to the ground, its still probable that her killer intended more cutting activity on her remains so it still could be Jack.....thats your call.

I cant make that call myself. There is no evidence that Liz Strides murder intended anything more than inflicting a single fatal wound, so for the moment, that should be the baseline here. There is nothing that can support the position in the form of submitted evidence.

And without the seeing intention demonstrated in the evidence, its little more than supposition.

Cheers Mike

[The Good Michael]

Everything is supposition. I don't care either way. It could have been suicide. The idea of two throat slashers in two Jewish areas within 45 minutes (or so) of each other is a rather large coincidence and surely pushes the ball at least halfway into the other court. One suicide and one throat slasher makes more sense in a statistical way. Back to Eagle (keeping it on track), his statement doesn't support any position, including suicide.

Cheers,

Mike

[perrymason]

Everything is supposition. I don't care either way. It could have been suicide. The idea of two throat slashers in two Jewish areas within 45 minutes (or so) of each other is a rather large coincidence and surely pushes the ball at least halfway into the other court. One suicide and one throat slasher makes more sense in a statistical way. Back to Eagle (keeping it on track), his statement doesn't support any position, including suicide.

Cheers,

Mike

Eagles statements suggest that he walked into the yard at 12:40am and saw no-one in front of the gates or in the yard, they suggest that the yard was empty which then suggests that Lave who said he was in the yard at the same time wasnt there...or vice versa, they suggest that his stated fear of the sight of blood was temporarily suspended when he heard about a woman terribly cut downstairs in the passage, ......(as an aside, the word "passage" is a key point here for the witness around 12:45am, Im not sure that everyone knows that the laneway between the cottages and the side wall of the club was often called a "passage" in reports).....and he suggests by his manner of calling out for police that "another" murder has been committed on a night when Liz Strides throat slit murder is the second of 3, I believe,... the first of which he would have no knowledge.

Odd that Mrs Diemshutz doesnt corroborate his story of coming into the kitchen door at around 12:40...she was there for some time before and during the murder itself. Odd that Mr Diemshutz says he rushed into the kitchen to be sure that the figure on the ground wasnt her...even after he had lit the match to see better. Odd that a press report says that the men upstairs were notified by a member called Gilleman at 12:55am, inferring he had come up from the yard he had just been in...which would mean that the members who saw the yard as empty at 12:40 do not then translate to an assumption that we continue to have an empty yard between 12:40 and 12:55.

Knowing what we know about the Club and its relationship with the neighbors and the police, knowing that these harmless Socialists attack police with clubs a few months later, and knowing that they had the ability to create a story for Liz Strides last few minutes that no outside witness could dispute, I think its pretty obvious that they could have made things much easier on the club and its members that night.

Best regards Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Odd that Mrs Diemshutz doesnt corroborate his story of coming into the kitchen door at around 12:40

Where is it recorded that she either did, or didn't, corroborate his story, Mike?

[perrymason]

Where is it recorded that she either did, or didn't, corroborate his story, Mike?

Hi Sam,

Well, she makes no mention of his entrance even though he would likely have had to walk right past her or easily within her view. She does say that she was there for some time before the incident, and she heard or saw nothing from the yard.

I think if Eagle had entered and seen Mrs D, there would have at least been a tip of the hat...she is after all sort of his employer along with Louis. He is a paid speaker I believe.

All the best G

[caz]

Maybe its worthwhile still looking at these cases as independent unsolved murders, even if others have before us.....because that is in fact all that they provably are.

All the best

Hi Perry,

May I ask how you have managed to prove that these are 'independent' unsolved murders? Or did you get a bit carried away there in your enthusiam?

Guilt is something that must be proven....innocence must be assumed until that has been done, thats why I say that Jack the Ripper should be seen as not guilty of the murder of Liz Stride.....

Trouble is, you are making some other poor bugger guilty of this murder - someone who may not have taken a knife to anyone in his whole life. This is not justice, and it doesn't lessen the ripper's guilt one jot. You are actually presuming the guilt of two men instead of just one, which goes against the very principle you are urging others to adopt. And that’s without dragging a third man in for Mary’s murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hi Perry,

1. May I ask how you have managed to prove that these are 'independent' unsolved murders? Or did you get a bit carried away there in your enthusiam?

2. Trouble is, you are making some other poor bugger guilty of this murder - someone who may not have taken a knife to anyone in his whole life. This is not justice, and it doesn't lessen the ripper's guilt one jot. You are actually presuming the guilt of two men instead of just one, which goes against the very principle you are urging others to adopt. And that’s without dragging a third man in for Mary’s murder.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

On the first part, "technically" the only thing linking any murder to another is suggestive physical and circumstantial evidence and supposition on the part of the investigators....I would agree that some seem to be linked to one killer, but thats far from being proven.

On the second part....at this stage I only suggest we release Jack from suspicion on this murder, although I may believe that Kidney is a good suspect, I cannot attribute this murder to anyone. Again.....Justice is defined as presuming the innocence of the accused until, and if, guilt can be proven. We have assigned an unknown man who is guilty of murder(s) this crime based on little more than speculation.....aside from the night, the walking distance between locations, and the fact she has her throat cut....there is nothing in the physical evidence that might suggest she was killed by the killer who sought to mutilate his victims post mortem.

If a killers motivations are defined by his actions, Liz was intended to die. Annie however, died so that the killer could take organs from her.

I just dont see any correlation there Caz.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Well, she makes no mention of his entrance

I wouldn't necessarily expect her to have done, Mike and, if she had, I wouldn't expect the press to have reported the fact either.

[perrymason]

I wouldn't necessarily expect her to have done, Mike and, if she had, I wouldn't expect the press to have reported the fact either.

I wonder about that Sam. There is an awful lot of evidence that is given that cannot be substantiated by another witness....even a fellow club witness, like in the case of Eagle and Lave at 12:40am....if she had an opportunity to corroborate Eagle it would be in their best interest overall.

Eagle is the paid speaker......Mrs D is the Office Manager.....its very possible that she had his pay. Louis was out.

Best regards mate

[caz]

Hi Perry,

I'm having difficulty with your logic here. We know of one man in the area that night who was more than capable of working himself up to cut a woman's throat - for whatever reason. Yet you seem to be arguing that the only man in the East End who would not have simply lost his temper with a woman, slit her throat and moved on, was the individual who cut the throats of Polly, Annie and Kate.

Why do you think this man, uniquely, would only have been willing or able to use his knife in very specific circumstances and for one reason only? Once he had taken human life the first time, it would have become that much cheaper and easier to take it again, if and when a different excuse arose. If you accept that this man would have cut a copper's throat if he had to (and not to harvest his organs ), why not Liz's if he felt sufficiently provoked?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I wonder about that Sam. There is an awful lot of evidence...

... and very limited column-inches in the papers. They simply couldn't have mentioned everything that every witness said in this case, no matter how inconvenient this might prove to posterity.