a theory on the Stride murder

[Jon Guy]

Different circumstances. Stride was not on even ground like the other women.

Different circumstances? You`re having a laugh. What different circumstances?

Her neck was lying over jagged stones which clearly made it difficult for the killer to maneuver his knife

WRONG!! Don`t give me that rubbish about neck lying over jagged stones. Where the did you get that one from?
Get your facts right, her neck was lying over a carriage wheel rut. Her neck was raised.

as can be seen by the necessity for him to use her scarf to lift her head into position.

Why? Her neck was already raised off the ground lying over the rut.
The scarf was simply pulled back to expose the throat and nothing to do with the stones in the yard

given the circumstances of this murder it's understandable that the wound wasn't as deep.

You keep banging on about different circumstances.
What different circumstances?

but it seems accuracy is taking a backseat to ego.

Exactly my thoughts.

and there's you guys repeating every mistake found in Ripper books over the last two decades...with the greatest respect...nuff said.

It`s you who is repeating the mistakes.

[Jon Guy]

Jon:
Oh but I do have some medical knowledge, actually. I'm definitely not a doctor, but i'm not ignorant of it either.
As for Phillips, no doubt he had been a good doctor, but he stuffed up on several occasions in the JTR case and therefore, is not necessarily a reliable source of information.

You consider your opinion has more relevance than Phillips?

[Jon Guy]

Yeah, Trev, just go to your bookcase and pick out the book with your name and a skull on it. The inquests comprise the first 3/4 of the book. Happy reading!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

If you know where they are, why don`t you have a look Tom? Although, from what I`ve seen of your "theory" I don`t think it will be happy reading.

[Adam Went]

Trevor:

I do agree with some of what you've said but it's been gone over a million times before. Sorry, but the theory that Liz was not a victim of Jack the Ripper is old and outdated. She is in the "Canonical 5" for a reason and it's about time she was accepted there. I know nostalgia might be the big thing in a lot of other industries at the moment, and everything old is new again, but this old theory on Liz is not one of them and is well past its use by date.....

Jon:

Oh but I do have some medical knowledge, actually. I'm definitely not a doctor, but i'm not ignorant of it either.
As for Phillips, no doubt he had been a good doctor, but he stuffed up on several occasions in the JTR case and therefore, is not necessarily a reliable source of information.

Tom:


I don't know why Adam points to this news report as the genesis for the idea that Pipeman was known. We've had this discussion before, but it seems accuracy is taking a backseat to ego. This report in absolutely no way indicates that Pipeman was known to anyone. It simply states that a man fitting a description provided by Schwartz was arrested and let go, which means the man was neither Pipeman nor BS Man. As I've stated before, the first suggestion that Pipeman was known to the police comes from Paul Begg in his book 'The Facts'.

Actually, if you had bothered to read my entire post, rather than just that section and then rush to press the reply button thinking "Oh sweet, I've got him now!", you would see that I said exactly that further down. Infact, let me quote myself....

Unfortunately, it doesn't specifically tell us whether it was BS Man or Pipeman, or perhaps some other mysterious bloke hanging around that we don't know about, so we can't say for sure.....most likely though, it's more mis-reporting by the press, as there doesn't seem to be anything in police records or statements about the arrest of this man.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Trevor, you are such an amateur. You're not giving me medical evidence, you're giving me the opinion of a doctor on something outside of his expertise. Following this Phillips visited Dutfield's Yard and made note that there were no blood stains on the wall as would be expected if she were upright when killed.

I rest my case...now please rest your mouth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Yeah, Trev, just go to your bookcase and pick out the book with your name and a skull on it. The inquests comprise the first 3/4 of the book. Happy reading!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I would suggest you and your friend Hunter learn how to asses and evaluate what you read.

The inquest report on Eddowes refers to the wounds being made whilst the victim was on the ground not that she was murdered on the ground. see extract below

[Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down.

I also quote from Strides inquest and it still suggests that the killer was behind her when he commenecd the attack.

A Juror: Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground? - I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground.

Members of the jury I rest my case

[Tom_Wescott]

By the way Trevor... Please read the inquests. They are very helpful.

Yeah, Trev, just go to your bookcase and pick out the book with your name and a skull on it. The inquests comprise the first 3/4 of the book. Happy reading!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Well you obvioulsy do and you obvioulsy failed to test my theory, or did you and i was proved right and you havent the b...s to admit you were wrong.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You really didn't register on my radar until you started posting in the Stride threads...except for that time years ago when I dropped $20 at Amazon.com to get your book, 75% of which was copy-and-pasted inquest reports.

I am as aversed in as much case knowledge as you the only difference is that I look at the whole case and I am not obessed with one particular aspect which you seem to be with regard to Elizabeth Stride and who murdered her and how she was murdered.

LOL. You want to take me on in a Stride-free trivia contest, Trev? It seems very important to you to one-up me for some reason. Maybe that would be your chance. Or maybe not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

I've been working on a study of Phillips and Bond lately. Mainly because there's little on Phillips and I believe he is largely misunderstood. Bagster was a straght-laced kind of guy. He compared the wounds of the victims in a literal sense. He felt that was his only job. He also got caught up in the 'anatomical skill' controversy over the Chapman murder and Baxter didn't help matters when he linked Phillips' statement to the 'American doctor buying uteri' story, though Phillips never apparently said that he agreed with Baxter. Still his strict clinical analysis of each of the 4 victims that he saw is incisive. That he seemed to not consider other circumstances that may have made each murder 'different'; he felt that was not his job but that of the detectives working the case.

By the way Trevor, Phillips would be the first (and was actually) to tell you that all of the victims he saw had their throats cut while lying down. Please read the inquests. They are very helpful.

[Trevor Marriott]

Tom
You just cant help yourself can you

Sure I can. I have a number of times.

Yes we know you are repetetive to the point of boring people to death so its about time you stopped and changed the record.

That's because no one reads your posts.

Well you obvioulsy do and you obvioulsy failed to test my theory, or did you and i was proved right and you havent the b...s to admit you were wrong.

Okay, who's your publicist? Your dentist? Your hairstylist? What you lack in case knowledge and understanding you definitely make up for in marketing and PR.

I am as aversed in as much case knowledge as you the only difference is that I look at the whole case and I am not obessed with one particular aspect which you seem to be with regard to Elizabeth Stride and who murdered her and how she was murdered.

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

You cannot say that is correct that she was killed whilst on the ground.

Sure I can. I have a number of times.

I previously asked posters to put this to the test. i notice no one came back and said that my test was wrong.

That's because no one reads your posts.

If I can be of any further help to you Tom please dont hesitate to contact me

Okay, who's your publicist? Your dentist? Your hairstylist? What you lack in case knowledge and understanding you definitely make up for in marketing and PR.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Different circumstances. Stride was not on even ground like the other women. Her neck was lying over jagged stones which clearly made it difficult for the killer to maneuver his knife as can be seen by the necessity for him to use her scarf to lift her head into position. By doing this, his own weight is shifted and his balance and strength compromised. It should not be overlooked that the wound was severe enough to kill her, so the 'job' was accomplished, but given the circumstances of this murder it's understandable that the wound wasn't as deep.

You cannot say that is correct that she was killed whilst on the ground.

Furthermore you cannot say that the other victims were killed on the ground. I previously asked posters to put this to the test. i notice no one came back and said that my test was wrong.

I re iterate that cutting someones throat was the accepted method of killing someone.

Hmmm...let me see...Virtually every detective and medical man who worked on the case felt Stride was a Ripper victim, and there's you guys repeating every mistake found in Ripper books over the last two decades...with the greatest respect...nuff said.

Well i would suggest that given their level of lack of expertise in dealing with serial killers it was only natural that they thought all the murders were connected. On the face of it that appears to be the case but careful scrutiny of all the facts and evidence would now suggest otherwise

Tom Wescott

If I can be of any further help to you Tom please dont hesitate to contact me

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I personally think, that Stride was a Ripper victim. JtR just was about to get caught!

All the best
Jukka

[Tom_Wescott]

Why didn`t Stride have the tell tale marks to her vertebrae ? Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly all did. Different knife? Different M.O. ? Different killer? There was a different something.

Different circumstances. Stride was not on even ground like the other women. Her neck was lying over jagged stones which clearly made it difficult for the killer to maneuver his knife as can be seen by the necessity for him to use her scarf to lift her head into position. By doing this, his own weight is shifted and his balance and strength compromised. It should not be overlooked that the wound was severe enough to kill her, so the 'job' was accomplished, but given the circumstances of this murder it's understandable that the wound wasn't as deep.

To answer your earlier question about Pipeman, the story that he had been picked up by the police comes from the report in The Star on October 1, 1888, which carried Israel Schwartz's statement to them. To quote from the article.....

The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. The prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

I don't know why Adam points to this news report as the genesis for the idea that Pipeman was known. We've had this discussion before, but it seems accuracy is taking a backseat to ego. This report in absolutely no way indicates that Pipeman was known to anyone. It simply states that a man fitting a description provided by Schwartz was arrested and let go, which means the man was neither Pipeman nor BS Man. As I've stated before, the first suggestion that Pipeman was known to the police comes from Paul Begg in his book 'The Facts'.

Can you please direct me to where I can find Phillips comments that Stride was killed by "a different hand."

There aren't any, because it was Eddowes whom Dr. Phillips said was by a different hand. Dr. Phillips and his assistant, Dr. Percy Clark, were of the opinion that medically speaking they could only attribute three murders to one hand, those being Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. Having said that, when taking other factors into consideration, Dr. Phillips seemed to be comfortable allowing Stride into the equation and, perhaps a little more reluctantly, Eddowes. Superintendent Thomas Arnold felt that Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Kelly were all Ripper victims, but not Eddowes.

Hmmm..let me see...a Victorian Police Surgeon of over twenty years experience in the East End, and there`s you guys...with the greatest of respect...nuff said.

Hmmm...let me see...Virtually every detective and medical man who worked on the case felt Stride was a Ripper victim, and there's you guys repeating every mistake found in Ripper books over the last two decades...with the greatest respect...nuff said.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

As for Jon's point.....Dr. Phillips also thought that Catherine Eddowes was killed by a different hand. 'Nuff said about him.

Hmmm..let me see...a Victorian Police Surgeon of over twenty years experience in the East End, and there`s you guys...with the greatest of respect...nuff said.

Can you please direct me to where I can find Phillips comments that Stride was killed by "a different hand."