a theory on the Stride murder

[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]

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

[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 Sorry, but the theory that Liz was not a victim of Jack the Ripper is old and outdated.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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Well if I am an amateur I can only get better you appear to be a muppet and well theres no hope for you.

You keep changing the goal posts you tell me to go read the inquest reports which you suggest corroborate your theory, when i do and come back showing the flaws in what you preach, you come out with another lame brain statement.

You say we shouldnt rely on the opinion of a doctor as it was out of his area of expertise. You should preach what you write. All we keep getting from you is your opinions and what you think. So tell us just what is your area of expertise for us to beleive you ?

[Adam Went]

Jon:

You consider your opinion has more relevance than Phillips?

Ignoring that silly question, you don't have to look very far in the case to see that Phillips was wrong more than once. He gave the wrong time of death for Annie Chapman - infact, he was quite a long way out. He gave the wrong time of death for Liz Stride (more forgiveable as he was the second doctor on the scene and he was only a matter of minutes out). And then he makes his comments about the likelihood of Eddowes being a victim of the same killer. That's three examples out of three murders in a row, what more do you need to be able to say that Dr. Phillips, good doctor though he was, was only human and prone to making mistakes like anybody else, and therefore must have his statements taken with a grain of salt - also, just like everybody else?

That you would take what he says at face value to be gospel without taking this into consideration is interesting though....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jon Guy]

That you would take what he says at face value to be gospel without taking this into consideration is interesting though....

Oh, I have taken them into consideration. But, for now, I standby the medics statements and opinions, (over other modern commentators !!) as they are qualified and were present at the crime scene.

[Tom_Wescott]

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....

If someone corrects an error of yours he's automatically playing "I got him" games? That's a rather defensive stance. Incidentally, I did read your entire post before responding, and nowhere in your post did you mention that the 'Pipeman was known' theory originated with Begg, which was the question; instead you again cited that news report which was not the genesis of the theory.

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.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. If I know where what is? And what "theory" of mine are you referring that will not make 'happy reading'? You quoted a joke I made to Trevor that seems to have no bearing on your response.

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.

I stand corrected. I guess it's back to the drawing board for me. You should write a book, Jon.

Why? Her neck was already raised off the ground lying over the rut.

Wow, that's one wide, deep rut!

It`s you who is repeating the mistakes.

It's my good fortune that I have you here to set me on the right track. Shame all your posts are edited. I love to see the uncensored versions!


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

You keep changing the goal posts you tell me to go read the inquest reports which you suggest corroborate your theory, when i do and come back showing the flaws in what you preach, you come out with another lame brain statement.

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.

And then of course there's Adam telling me I'm wrong about everything else. While I relish in having my mistakes corrected and learning something new, I can't honestly recall having made any errors on this thread and having been corrected by any of you, though from your tones that seems to be the goal. Trevor simply can't see the forest for the trees and we all know that, so I won't bother too much with him. Jon seems to want his giant carriage wheel rut, and takes the fascinating stance that the circumstances surrounding Stride's murder were identical to that of the other four victims, and yet doesn't see this as indicator that Stride was killed by the same man. He doesn't want to hear what I have to say or why I say the things I do, so that's cool.

I'm glad Adam has a sober and open mind regarding the evidence, even if he does put a little too much faith in non-contemporaneous second and third-hand sources. I hope he sticks around and keeps fighting it out. We might just hit paydirt!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

I think I see a steel cage death match in the making.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yep, it would appear I'm stuck between a rut and a jagged stone.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

John Douglas's opinion

Dear all,
I have just re-read Mr. Douglas's take on JTR in The Cases That Haunt Us. He seems to be in little doubt that Stride was a victim of the same killer as Eddowes. Now, given that his knowledge of the case is nowhere as profound as that of many members of this forum, and that he appears to rely heavily upon Martin Fido and Don Rumbelow, surely the man's vast experience of serial killers and their methods / motivations means that his views deserve to be taken seriously. Although profiling is not an exact science, and Mr. Douglas's writings can seem a little self-congratulatory at times, I feel that his opinions should not be dismissed lightly given his undoubted pedigree.

Any thoughts?

Steve.

[Tom_Wescott]

John Douglas

Hi Steven,

Douglas is more qualified in victimology than in serial killer profiling, although I don't think it should take an FBI profiler to conclude that Stride was a Ripper victim. However, serial killer profiling at this stage is virtually useless. David Canter is truly a joke in this regard and Douglas isn't much better. A quick look at his track record shows us that his profile of the Atlanta Child Murderer almost certainly put an innocent man behind bars and his profile of the Green River Killer - which struck Ridgway from the suspect list - earned the killer an extra 20+ years of freedom. Although the evidence in the Jonbenet Ramsey case makes it painfully clear it was an 'inside job', Douglas concluded after one meeting with the Ramsey that it absolutely could not have been them. He places his instincts above the evidence, and while he is truly gifted at catching rapists and thieves, there is simply not enough data on serial killers for anyone to be an 'expert' serial killer profiler, and that includes Douglas.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott