saving Liz Stride

[perrymason]

I take the responsibility of being one of the few members that suggest such ideas very seriously.....I fully realize that many eyes read these posts, hell our conversations are a saleable product.....and I am amazed at how many people who have studied these crimes long and hard still stand by positions that have zero support in any evidence.

If it takes some people outside the Ripper community to finally posit some logical questions, or suggest answers for questions that for years have been addressed by what is simply nonsense, ......(as is a lasting theory of the killer being interrupted by anything or anyone in Dutfields Yard)....then I am pleased to be one of that group.

I dont find rhetoric very helpful in the search for answers, nor do I accept what others believe unless I myself can see the same kinds of justifications for those beliefs.

In the 3 years Ive been hanging out here Ive seen something happening to the discussions.....the newer members seem to be unsatisfied with some of the answers they had been asked to accept for years, and they are challenging them more. Since my personal belief is that the evidence available in the Ripper killings cannot logically lead one to conclude that one killer was responsible for those 5 murders.....I see that as positive progress in this field. Many Senior members however dont like to re-dress some of the entrenched themes.

It may not seem as positive to you since youre obviously a part of that propaganda machine now...but it does seem positive to some who want truth before "palatability" by the field scholars.

Whats true today is that anyone with some interest can learn everything there is to know about the actual evidence available in each murder, and they need not explore every avenue of the people involved, the times and the census records to find that the common themes prevalent in the study of Jack the Ripper are, despite the many, many attempts to vindicate them...are illogical.

Evidence is dismissed if it doesnt "tow the Ripperology line", and ideas are discarded if they dont found themselves in the principal theme....a sexual serial killer of 5.

You may not like looking elsewhere for reasonable answers, but for some of us.....we have to.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

Liz--it doesn't add up

Hello Mike. Forensic reconstructions are a passion with me. I MUST go through all the steps. Polly and Annie--no big deal. Liz--it just does not add up.

Oh, well, perhaps he had broad shoulders and hurled her there after all. And perhaps Liz was testing the strength of her thumb and forefinger in grasping things.

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom. I am looking for an explanation regarding how she wound up 9 feet inside the gates, head towards the half-open kitchen door, feet towards the gates AND cachous still between thumb and forefinger. And why on her left side, not her back?

Yeah, I've written lots about all that stuff.

If it takes some people outside the Ripper community to finally posit some logical questions,

How are you any more 'outside' the 'Ripper community' than I am? And please name one 'logical question' you posed that I didn't pose first.

It may not seem as positive to you since youre obviously a part of that propaganda machine now...

Oh that's rich. Now who's the one not open to outside ideas? Hmmm? Keeping in mind I'm the first to seriously argue a) Schwartz was a club member, b) Schwartz lied to protect the club, c) Eagle might have been BS Man, d) the graffiti refers directly to the club members, e) the Vigilance Committee hoaxed the 'From Hell' letter themselves, and many other ideas that as of yet are in no way 'popular' and which challenge conventional thinking in the case. If that's propaganda, then let's keep that machine running! The difference is, I have respect for the case and all my arguments are researched, thought out, and plausible. When I see ignorant, factually inaccurate theories gaining ground on here simply because the posters involved don't know the facts, I get offended. Hence the tone of my recent posts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Septic Blue]

For sanity's sake; could we please have a courtesy-flush?

Please?

[lynn cates]

private information

Hello Tom

"When I see ignorant, factually inaccurate theories gaining ground on here simply because the posters involved don't know the facts, I get offended."

Why didn't you just say you had facts the rest of us did not have? I just hope you don't destroy them as Sir MM did.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Oh that's rich. Now who's the one not open to outside ideas? Hmmm? Keeping in mind I'm the first to seriously argue a) Schwartz was a club member, b) Schwartz lied to protect the club, c) Eagle might have been BS Man, d) the graffiti refers directly to the club members, e) the Vigilance Committee hoaxed the 'From Hell' letter themselves, and many other ideas that as of yet are in no way 'popular' and which challenge conventional thinking in the case. If that's propaganda, then let's keep that machine running! The difference is, I have respect for the case and all my arguments are researched, thought out, and plausible. When I see ignorant, factually inaccurate theories gaining ground on here simply because the posters involved don't know the facts, I get offended. Hence the tone of my recent posts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You mentioned in a recent post that you suspect LeGrand might a good suspect for the killing of Stride and that he would be in second place to The Ripper.....and whom is it that you are claiming is thinking outside the proverbial box? That you even support a postmortem mutilator as her killer shows you have no intentions of using the physical evidence to make your conclusions.

You investigate Eagle as BSM without even having Schwartz's story authenticated by anyone?..plus he is absent in the recordings of the Inquest. Thats not thinking outside the box, its just punching around inside the same old paper bag.

Tom......I know how you work Tom, I know you like to pat yourself on the back when you think you didnt get enough recognition, and I know also that when you claim that myself or anyone else on this thread is stating supposition as fact, youre misleading yourself and others.

In fact, the only fantasy theory in this murder that has been mentioned as "fact" is the one that you believe is more probable than her murder by a thug or lover....a postmortem mutilation interruptus without any evidence of such. Or are you stretching the envelope and suggesting that Jack now only cuts throats?

All in all, youre a fairly petty arguer in that you make accusations that are provably false about others without offering any specific proof. I know how important it is to you to be taken seriously by the powers that be in this field of study, Ive seen it many times here....but casting false aspersions are just about as well received by that group as unconventional approaches are by myself and others.

What you do and others like you is confuse these completely unsolved murder cases with a known criminal series of crimes.

As to my comments regarding my status outside the field....I dont publish anything I find or think about the crimes unless its done here, and I dont do it for the pats on the back which you seem to need......(not the first time Ive seen you post partial resumes of articles to seem more knowledgeable on the whole )......I do so I can discuss various ideas that are not as idiotic as a 5 victim "Canonical Group", and see if others might share my perspectives. I dont need field of study vindication in any shape or form....I desire intelligent logical and reasonable people to share alternative ideas with.

And Im pleased to find that some here seem to be in sync with my ideas.

If youre not....fine....then debate the points being made, enough of making these broad "all these falsehoods" kind of statements.

One hint though...if people say "supposing", or "perhaps" or "likely" or "probably", they are not attempting to say anything factual.

Best regards

[Tom_Wescott]

Why didn't you just say you had facts the rest of us did not have?

Because I'm chasing the Yankee dollar and that wouldn't suit my propagandist agenda.

You mentioned in a recent post that you suspect LeGrand might a good suspect for the killing of Stride and that he would be in second place to The Ripper.....and whom is it that you are claiming is thinking outside the proverbial box? That you even support a postmortem mutilator as her killer shows you have no intentions of using the physical evidence to make your conclusions.

While I've no doubt Le Grand would be flattered to be called a 'postmodern mutilator', I myself have no idea what that means. Nor do I have any idea of what you think my intentions are as regards the evidence.

All in all, youre a fairly petty arguer in that you make accusations that are provably false about others without offering any specific proof.

Find one tenured poster on here who disagrees with my comments regarding your approach to the evidence. Just one.

What you do and others like you is confuse these completely unsolved murder cases with a known criminal series of crimes.

By others you mean of course the whole of Scotland Yard.

And Im pleased to find that some here seem to be in sync with my ideas.

By others you mean Lynn Cates. I think I'll stick with Scotland Yard having my back.

I know how important it is to you to be taken seriously by the powers that be in this field of study, Ive seen it many times here....but casting false aspersions are just about as well received by that group as unconventional approaches are by myself and others.

Who are the powers that be? Apparently you know because you're speaking for them. Naturally, there are people in this field I respect, and therefore I want to treat them with respect and would hope to earn their respect in return. But if you think that effects my work on the case, you're nuts. You're just making stuff up now.

The bottom line is, I like you and Lynn as people, but you guys have blinders on when it comes to Stride. So, as long as you're going around talking nonsense, I'll occassionally pop up for fun exchanges like this. You'll notice that you've chased pretty much everyone but me away from these threads.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

blinders

Hello Tom. Um, I don't think the quote about being in sync was mine. Not one of my usual words.

As far as blinders go, I started like everyone else. I merely assumed that Liz was a Ripper victim. I reconstructed Polly X times and found no problem. I reconstructed Annie more than that. Position checked out. She and Jack were going INTO the yard at 29 Hanbury. She was found, head towards street, feet toward back. I did Liz X-1 times. Gave alternatives little thought. But on the X th time, it hit me like a hammer. "What!? If she's going INTO the yard, and if she died on the spot where she was attacked (cachous) then she should be facing the OTHER direction."

But if this is the blinders, perhaps some kind soul will tear them off? Of course, I won't impose on you given the urgency of your pursuits.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

exceptions

Hello Tom. I just noticed:

"By others you mean of course the whole of Scotland Yard."

Well, did not Dew and Woodhall have some different ideas about that?

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

For Lynn Cates

My apologies for attributing Perry's quote to you, Lynn. Thankfully, it was not one of his more slanderous or outrageous statements.

I'm not sure I understand why you place so much important on what direction you think the victim was standing, but remember that Liz's feet met the swing of the gate, so she would be described as standing just inside the gateway. It's not impossible that she and her killer were actually behind the gate. I used to think that was the case, but that would have been rather restrictive for her killer. More than likely she and her killer where near the right wall, at the ending of the gate swing. This would have been only about three or four steps from the pavement where Schwartz allegedly saw her last. Her head was about halfway from the gates to the door, which was only marginally open.

Kate Eddowes was holding a metal thimble at the time of death. This was found laying next to her right hand. Why? Chapman's items were found at her feet. Her ring, lotion, and medication were missing. Why? Surely this is just as curious as Stride's cachous. I believe the women were approached, led or taken to the spot where they would be killed, and were then robbed at knife point. This would assure they'd be quiet (explaining why none were heard to cry out) and complacent. They were told to empty their pockets. The killer took what he wanted. In Stride's case, and possibly Eddowes, it was money. Chapman had no money, so he knocked the items out of her hand, sorted them, took the lotion and medication and took the ring off her finger.

The evidence suggests that Chapman was throttled to unconsciousness. The blood evidence suggests she was turned to her left side and her throat was cut. She was then laid on her back for mutilation. Stride was left on her left hand side after having her throat cut. For whatever reason, she was not to be mutilated, therefore was not turned on her back.

Like Perry, I'm intrigued by the scarf, which was pulled tightly to one side. I think it quite possible that Stride fainted. Pulling the scarf tight to support her weight, the killer cut her throat as he laid her to the ground. Another possibility is that she was laid down before her throat was cut. Her head fell over the large, jagged stones used by the club as a makeshift gutter. If the killer were using a large knife, it would have been necessary for him to lift her head and neck up and off the stones in order to maneuver the knife. Since he had only one hand to do this (the other holding the knife), the scarf would have been the easiest and handiest method.

As for the blood drops on her wrist and palm, these were almost certainly transferred by Edward Johnston, who first felt her neck for a pulse, unbuttoned her blouse, and THEN felt her wrist for a pulse. Of course, he likely had no idea he transferred the blood.

These are the simplest and, to my mind, the most likely explanations to explain these mysteries. And as you can see, when placed in their proper perspective, none of them point away from Jack the Ripper as her most likely killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, did not Dew and Woodhall have some different ideas about that?

About Stride? I don't think so. But then, those are two sources I'd be very hesitant to refer to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Ill just add for posterity on this particular line of thought that to be in agreement with you Tom or Scotland Yards pat line on most of these individual points within these cases would be contrary to what I personally see in terms of the evidence available. So no insult that my posted perceptions dont match yours and SY's.

Maybe you and Scotland Yard have been right all along....a sexual serial killer of 5 including Liz Stride. Dont let the fact that hundreds of researchers over the years have been unable to make that "guesstimated" scenario work for either of ya....and the fact that the physical evidence in at least one of those 5 murders almost categorically excludes a postmortem mutilator. One you suggest is still most probably a victim of said killer anyway....just like Scotland Yard. Love that evidence you guys use to base that opinion on.

Whats the need for evidence when you have obviously flawed or intentionally misrepresented perceptions made by contemporary investigators to back you up. Standing behind the Scotland Yard line on Jack The Ripper is like being a plasterer on call for some Berlin Wall repairs.

I wont continue on this vein because frankly I am more concerned with what really may have happened than what you and SY think happened. I already know that tune quite well, and hardly anyone dances to it anymore anyway.

The fact that you would take it upon yourself to commit belief to Israel Schwartz's statement to the extent you would investigate whether Eagle may have been Broad Shouldered Man tells me that you could care less that no-one validates a thing that he says and he is absent from all the Inquest records. In case you cant see it before you, without corroboration, its well within reason and within the known records that Israel Schwartz was not believed by the Police and saw nothing at all that night. He may not even have been there at all.....see Fanny Mortimers testimony and James Browns, which do not include them seeing anyone like Schwartz or Pipeman or BSM standing outside the gates at 12:45ish. So why would you even consider trying to find people to fit his story with that gaping hole in the "evidence" he provides?

Cause when Swanson says Israel is to be believed,...it must mean he should be, right? Despite the lack of Inquest records that would vindicate his remarks.

Often when I am here I wish desperately I was the Swamp Land salesman type....cause Id be retired now.

[Tom_Wescott]

As for the blood drops on her wrist and palm, these were almost certainly transferred by Edward Johnston, who first felt her neck for a pulse, unbuttoned her blouse, and THEN felt her wrist for a pulse. Of course, he likely had no idea he transferred the blood.

I'll also add that these blood drops, described as 'oblong clots', may have given the appearance that she was holding something dark and of an oblong shape. I believe that in the relative darkness, these bloodstains were taken by a couple of people to be grapes, and thus the myth of the grapes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

direction

Hello Tom. Now this is helpful.

"I'm not sure I understand why you place so much important on what direction you think the victim was standing, but remember that Liz's feet met the swing of the gate, so she would be described as standing just inside the gateway."

Well, because her feet were measured at 9' from the gates. Perhaps it was improperly measured?

Now, given that she was seized by the scarf (see, we agree) and given the cachous, a natural explanation is that she gripped them with thumb and forefinger when seized. Now, as you and SY hypothesize, comes the cut. She is facing East, Jack needs to be at her right and slightly behind seizing the scarf with his left hand. Right hand draws the knife across the throat. She drops. He lowers her onto her left side. This looks like:

1. She is standing, facing East and Jack is standing beside her.

or

2. She is walking out of the yard, Jack walking behind her.

If 2, why is she walking out of the yard without fulfilling her contract?

But a natural explanation for 1 is that Liz is leading Jack into the yard for sex. She stops, turns, faces him. But now, does he say, "Close your eyes my dear whilst I go around behind you"?

But if they are face to face, how can he pull the scarf?

Of course, any number of positions could happen both ante and post mortem if not for those cachous. They serve to indicate her position at the time of death--just as a clock marks the time that a bomb fell when it is stopped at a certain moment.

Now, one way of solving this is to have Jack up the yard whilst Liz paces near the door. On an outbound circuit, he comes behind, and that is all that is needed.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

but then again

Hello Tom.

"About Stride? I don't think so. But then, those are two sources [ie, Dew and Woodhall] I'd be very hesitant to refer to."

Possibly so. But then not ALL SY agreed. (At any rate, that is found in the A-Z.)

The best.
LC