Escape Routes From Dutfield's Yard: Pall Mall Gazette

[Howard Brown]

Amen, Tom.

Perry

Needless to say, its off handed and innocent remarks which have no agenda to fulfill or subjective aim such as this claim that Diemshutz "must have" disturbed the murderer that get into print.... that get into the heads of individuals who write books or articles or even make posts...that get absorbed into the history of the Case as some sort of fact when its not.

It simply excites people to think that it did happen that way...that the killer was interrupted by Diemshutz...and the equally plausible, equally possible scenario, but a far more mundane recreation of the Stride murder to ponder and consider, is that something or someone else did.

That is...if,in fact,anything did.

For all we know, the killer, in this instance and from a subjective p.o.v., the Saucy One took Stride into the yard....was determined to pull a Hanbury Street on her...and changed his mind because he got bad vibes from his proximity to the IWEMC. He then heads west where he subsequently does his thing on City turf....Bottom line Mike, the Ripper could have suddenly got cold feet. Many's the man who's had a case of cold feet in all sorts of endeavors. The same could apply to someone other than the Ripper.

But then again...that doesn't match up to how some people like to percieve him and it doesn't sell.

Virtually every Ripper author since Day One has suggested that L.D. disturbed the killer for no apparent reason other than its been handed down and accepted as an article of faith.

Sorry to divert.

[perrymason]

Amen, Tom.

Perry

Needless to say, its off handed and innocent remarks which have no agenda to fulfill or subjective aim such as this claim that Diemshutz "must have" disturbed the murderer that get into print.... that get into the heads of individuals who write books or articles or even make posts...that get absorbed into the history of the Case as some sort of fact when its not.

It simply excites people to think that it did happen that way...that the killer was interrupted by Diemshutz...and the equally plausible, equally possible scenario, but a far more mundane recreation of the Stride murder to ponder and consider, is that something or someone else did.

That is...if,in fact,anything did.

For all we know, the killer, in this instance and from a subjective p.o.v., the Saucy One took Stride into the yard....was determined to pull a Hanbury Street on her...and changed his mind because he got bad vibes from his proximity to the IWEMC. He then heads west where he subsequently does his thing on City turf....Bottom line Mike, the Ripper could have suddenly got cold feet. Many's the man who's had a case of cold feet in all sorts of endeavors. The same could apply to someone other than the Ripper.

But then again...that doesn't match up to how some people like to percieve him and it doesn't sell.

Virtually every Ripper author since Day One has suggested that L.D. disturbed the killer for no apparent reason other than its been handed down and accepted as an article of faith.

Sorry to divert.

You didnt divert at all, and thanks for that eloquent answer Howard. Unfortunately I agree with you 100% ... and I personally dont believe that such lasting suggestions are helpful in the ongoing determination of what actually transpired that Fall. Because the assumption of an interruption has in part been responsible for a continuing falacy within the Canonical Group reasoning. Liz Strides murder reveals nothing in the way of evidence to support that scenario.

I do agree with Tom that we dont likely have any fence scaler here as well. That leaves the gates or via the front door to Berner Street when everyone else is at the gates and inside the yard. The second one requires complicity...and although I think they may have altered some facts that night, I dont see this as a "Club supported" act.

Best regards Howard, Tom, all.

[Suzi]

Look he lurked behind the gates and buggered off into the crowd - Or he made off when he heard the pony trot in at the top of the road after a quick slice- giving him a good couple of minutes- end of story!

AND no rubbish about scuttling off to Mitre Square- IMHO he probably laid low in Mr Packer's back room (Her Hum ) then after a media mingle went on his way

[perrymason]

Look he lurked behind the gates and buggered off into the crowd - Or he made off when he heard the pony trot in at the top of the road after a quick slice- giving him a good couple of minutes- end of story!

AND no rubbish about scuttling off to Mitre Square- IMHO he probably laid low in Mr Packer's back room (Her Hum ) then after a media mingle went on his way

I like your thinking above Suzi, simple explanation for a simple murder... that we cannot see any evidence for having been committed by an abdominal mutilator.

But what about this....since the man was clearly a thug, wouldnt it be likely that the Club would hire such types on meeting nights? Crowd control for one...at its height the meeting that night had around 200 people in attendance. Maybe this guy was loitering around in the "supposedly empty" yard...hits on Liz, she demurs with an insult, and he flips out as she turns her back to him. 2 seconds.

Best regards Suz

[Monty]

Archaic,

But I welcome the opinions of others; that's why I started this thread in the first place.

Then welcome the opinion instead of getting pissy when its given.

There is a photo partically showing the interior of the yard and Goads maps are rarely inaccurate. This couple with sketches and other maps indicate the was only two logical escape routes.

As Rob states, we arent telling you what you can or cant discuss. Thats up to you. However if you wish to get to the bottom of it instead of wasting webspace then take heed of those who HAVE taking time to study the issue that is implied in the title of this thread.

It would be more fruitful, in my most humblest of opinions, to follow Toms suggestion.

Monty

[Observer]

For all we know, the killer, in this instance and from a subjective p.o.v., the Saucy One took Stride into the yard....was determined to pull a Hanbury Street on her...and changed his mind because he got bad vibes from his proximity to the IWEMC.

Hi Howard

A scenario that I had in mind, and entirely possible. The proximity to the IWEC, and it's singing inhabitants, could also be the reason why the cut to the throat didn't display the ferocity seen in the other victims

all the best

Observer

[perrymason]

Howard and Observer,

To assume that the killer in Dutfields Yard was indeed Jack and that he chose not to go any further than just killing assumes that killing itself was at least to some degree a goal or motivator for the killer.

In the 2 prior murders that are almost certainly by the same hand, there is no indication that the murder itself was anything more to the killer than a required step in the process.

I could see that a serial killer who desires death above all might make sense...............but I dont see evidence of that sort of killer in Bucks Row or Hanbury.

When you consider those acts, the actual cutting of the throat occurred after the women were fully subdued and unable to resist, which means that killer doesnt use a knife until that point...he needs both hands.

Liz Strides killer choked her with her scarf and slit her throat while she fell...in what may be 2 seconds. And Kate Eddowes is killed almost identically to the first 2 victims.

What the evidence suggests is a less troublesome killer was guilty of the murder in Dutfields Yard....not that Jack just happened to pass on what he seems intent on doing since he began and that on this murder he chooses to slit a throat while he struggled with the woman as she was standing.

My best regards

[Barnaby]

Howard and Observer,

To assume that the killer in Dutfields Yard was indeed Jack and that he chose not to go any further than just killing assumes that killing itself was at least to some degree a goal or motivator for the killer.

Indeed it does. If it was Jack, surely he had in mind the usual mutilation. But once committed to the deed, but given the circumstances, he decided to play it safe and take what he could. It's better than nothing.

If all he wanted to do was mutilate dead corpses, he could have been an Ed Gein type. Killing was a part of his methods.

[perrymason]

Indeed it does. If it was Jack, surely he had in mind the usual mutilation. But once committed to the deed, but given the circumstances, he decided to play it safe and take what he could. It's better than nothing.

If all he wanted to do was mutilate dead corpses, he could have been an Ed Gein type. Killing was a part of his methods.

Thats all well and good to suppose Barnaby, but the evidence in the first 2 murders which are almost certainly connected by the killer do not match that of the 3rd victim....in methodology or overt intention.

Meaning...if Jack just decides to leave this victim after a single cut, then he does not have the same goals as the man who killed to enable what created the need to kill in the first place...to obtain a dead woman he could cut into.

Their deaths, the first 2, are just necessary steps...there is no indication that committing murder itself was any kind of driver for that killer.

Best regards

[Howard Brown]

Meaning...if Jack just decides to leave this victim after a single cut, then he does not have the same goals as the man who killed to enable what created the need to kill in the first place...to obtain a dead woman he could cut into.

Mike...bear with me:

1. We assume and in assuming are probably correct that Nichols would have recieved the same sort of treatment Chapman did if some sort of outside interference not been presented after he sliced the woman's throat. The odds are that the mutilation was thwarted by Jack's first encounter with the odors her body emitted: someone made a noise down the road: a cat meeowed: someone was heard talking in the distance: he got cold feet for some reason..... bottom line, we assume that he got bad vibes about something and didn't finish the job, a la Chapman.

2. We know what happened to Chapman without elaborating.

3. We can assume that Stride was a Ripper victim and thats all we can do...and that something could have interfered with a theoretically intended mutilation. Immediately after throttling her, cutting her throat and putting her on the ground....something may have happened at that very point...to stymie the intended mutilation that he may have planned...an intention that was not realized to the point the Nichols murder/mutilation was realized, and yet the Nichols murder did not see the full scale mutilation the Chapman murder/mutilation did.

We seem to get stuck in this mindset that because NO mutilation occurred during the Stride murder, that there is some sort of inherent difference between her murder and the prior two in terms of intention. No one can include the Stride murder among the canonicals if they think they knew his intentions were to mutilate, just as no one can exclude her as a canonical victim because of the fact that there was no mutilation. Nothing can be demonstrated after 121 years, except for a personal agenda to include or exclude her amongst her sister victims of a knife wielding killer, to remove her from consideration....and thats all that can be done because no one knows what disrupted, if anything disrupted, the killer.

For all we know, he may have killed her with no intention to mutilate. There's nothing written somewhere under a rock that says that the Ripper had to mutilate each victim in such a way that we would certainly appreciate knowing in order to establish a definite number of victims for our own satisfaction.

Actually, there is the common feature of a cut throat in the great outdoors that links them more than the failure to mutilate to the degree found within the Chapman murder separates them. All three were killed outdoors.

Later....

P.S.

All the best to you too, Observer.

Monty...who loves ya ?

[perrymason]

I am used to your common sense approach Howard ...and I dont dispute that mutilations alone should not be enough in and of itself to question whether the Stride murderer killed the 2 Canonical women before her...

But....the methodologies dont match either.

In both the Nichols case and the Chapman case the women were attacked while they solicited....they were fully subdued without appreciable noise or struggle, and the throat cuts were made when the women were on the ground, face up.....its also the first use of his knife. Then he mutilates.

In Liz Stride's case we do not know the reason for her being at that location, ...she was probably grabbed by her scarf from behind, choked momentarily and was cut while falling, and she fell remaining on her left side, untouched.

Whats different?

1. The attack and the throat cut in Liz Strides case are one extended movement or action. They are separate steps in the previous murders attributed to Jack.
2. Liz is attacked by her killer while he holds his knife. Neither of the first 2 cases require that to be the case, in fact the likelihood is that he used 2 hands to fully incapacitate them.
3. Liz is probably fully conscious when she is cut based on that scenario suggested by Blackwell, at best the first 2 women may be only semi-so.
4. Liz Stride is not clearly soliciting that night, in both Polly's case and Annie's case we are told by the women themselves that they are doing just that the night they die.
5. Liz Stride is left lying on her side, untouched from the moment she fell....none of the rest of the Canonicals were.
6. Only one of Liz Strides arteries was fully severed....all of the other Canonicals had both arteries severed by very severe and deep throat cuts.
7. Liz Stride dies clutching cachous......needless to say, Polly and Annie had their hands full working when they are cut, and no other victim clutches an item...let alone one that had no defensive capability if she thought she was in danger.
8. Liz Stride is supposedly seen being accosted in the street by someone very drunk who approaches her from the rear and in the presence of 2 witnesses just before being found dead....supposedly, he grabs her and causes her to fall. No other Canonical was seen in any physical distress immediately before their attack, and no other Canonical was seen in the company of an obviously intoxicated man just prior to their murder.
9. Liz Stride is murdered beside a building that housed an ongoing singalong of some 28 Jewish immigrants,....in all the other Ripper venues the residents are either asleep or remaining silent indoors.
10. Liz Stride was not killed so her killer could do anything else to her, however it is certain that Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary were.

My best regards Howard as always.

[robhouse]

Question for Rob Clack,

Re the Goad fire map you posted (post #8)..... do you know anything about the numbers and letters and other symbols on the map... specifically, "D" (or "S") and the numbers... often "2" or "3"? Also, there is often what looks like a capital "T".

What do all these symbols mean? Is there a legend for the goad maps somewhere?

Rob H

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,

D = Dwellings
S = Shop
T = Tiled roof.
The numbers inside the buildings refer to how many storeys in the building. The numbers outside the buildings are street numbering.

Rob

[Monty]

A follow on to Robs post...

Red indicates brick structures, yellow wooden and blue glass.

Monty

[Observer]

Hi Mike

With an estimated TOD of 12:45 a.m. have you ever considered the possibility that Liz Strides killer was disturbed, shortly after cutting her throat, at the above time? There were quite a few people in the club that night it could well be that one of them came to either of the doors for fresh air or some other reason. It was also somewhat early for a Saturday night Sunday morning, someone might have passed in the street, thus disturbing him.

all the best

Observer