Did jack kill liz stride?

[Michael W Richards]

Thank you very much Sam, much appreciated. I kinda liked it too when I signed off....

Lynn has made the elephant here visible....one of the sole reasons and something that is cited as "evidence" that Liz Stride was a Ripper victim is the fact that so close by and so soon after that murder another murder much more like what was expected occurred. That alone isnt evidence until its proven not to be merely a coincidental occurrence...which I personally believe it may well have been. The actual known facts leave a very large hole for any case for Jack the Ripper as the killer....perhaps by the situation the victim was in, the wound itself, the singularity of cut, the body position apparently undisturbed after the cut, the "coincidental" fact that she dies on what police believed to be property run by anarchists, (Eastern European Immigrant Jew anarchists, at the point in time police believed such a profile fit the Ripper,or more precisely the killer of Polly and Annie to that point), there seems to be a different weapon used than in the previous kills, we have contradictory statements made regarding the time of the body's discovery by said anarchists,.....and lots more small pieces, ...all which seem to form a portrait of someone other than the double murderer.

If you accept that there were indeed multiple men willing and capable of committing murder at that point in time in that small geographical area, then shouldnt we almost expect some overlap of their individual acts at some point down the road? Or do they take turns?

Cheers

[Hunter]

Exactly what is the evidence that multiple men were killing unfortunates in the East End at that time Mike? Predisposing what you or anyone else believes "Jack" should have done is not evidence, but a predisposition - same as the folks espousing the other point of view. Eveyone seems to know how "Jack" operated or should have conducted himself. He didn't kill Stride 'cause she wasn't mutilated. He did kill Stride, but was interrupted before he could mutilate. We don't even know who "he" was... even though there's a bunch of folks who think they do.

The certain thing is that no one - not one individual - was apprehended and convicted of any of these murders - not even just one of them - and even though they investigated each one individually as was their procedure. That speaks volumes in itself. It certainly is indicative of something unusual, unless you are of the belief that the police were either so unfortunate or stupid in investigating this series of murders when they usually weren't otherwise.

[Observer]

Lynn has made the elephant here visible....
Cheers

Goats, sheep, now an elephant ! Is there no end to this man's ability to pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat? ! Keep your head down wabbit. What we have, in effect, is a menagerie ! Surely we are not looking for Jack The Ripper. That's it, Jackal The Ripper, scourge of Whitechapel.

[Observer]

Exactly what is the evidence that multiple men were killing unfortunates in the East End at that time Mike? Predisposing what you or anyone else believes "Jack" should have done is not evidence, but a predisposition - same as the folks espousing the other point of view. Eveyone seems to know how "Jack" operated or should have conducted himself. He didn't kill Stride 'cause she wasn't mutilated. He did kill Stride, but was interrupted before he could mutilate. We don't even know who "he" was... even though there's a bunch of folks who think they do.

The certain thing is that no one - not one individual - was apprehended and convicted of any of these murders - not even just one of them - and even though they investigated each one individually as was their procedure. That speaks volumes in itself. It certainly is indicative of something unusual, unless you are of the belief that the police were either so unfortunate or stupid in investigating this series of murders when they usually weren't otherwise.

Finest post in this thread by a long chalk.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly what is the evidence that multiple men were killing unfortunates in the East End at that time Mike? Predisposing what you or anyone else believes "Jack" should have done is not evidence, but a predisposition - same as the folks espousing the other point of view. Eveyone seems to know how "Jack" operated or should have conducted himself. He didn't kill Stride 'cause she wasn't mutilated. He did kill Stride, but was interrupted before he could mutilate. We don't even know who "he" was... even though there's a bunch of folks who think they do.

The certain thing is that no one - not one individual - was apprehended and convicted of any of these murders - not even just one of them - and even though they investigated each one individually as was their procedure. That speaks volumes in itself. It certainly is indicative of something unusual, unless you are of the belief that the police were either so unfortunate or stupid in investigating this series of murders when they usually weren't otherwise.

What I illuminated in my previous post Hunter was that there was definitely more than 1 man willing to commit murder during the same time frame and within the same geographical area as this Jack fellow. I didnt specify Unfortunates, you did, and in reality it may have been ONLY "Jack" that was focused on that segment of the population, and ONLY jack that killed without reason or knowing his victim...., as I alluded to earlier as well. The fact that we dont know that Liz Stride was soliciting when she meets her killer, or Kate, or Mary, means that we cannot assume that they were chosen by anyone who has demonstrated a predilection for that type of victim. As was certainly the case with the first 2 Canonical victims. Many, you included, seem content with assumptions of motivation, but no-one anywhere can prove as of this writing that 3 of the alledged 5 victims of a supposed serial killer were encouraging the man to act by soliciting alone at night, as the first 2 evidently did. And no-one can prove as of this writing that the reason any of the three were killed was because the killer killed...and I suppose only sometimes mutilated strangers to satisfy his psychological impairment.

The profile of the man that killed Polly and Annie is very similar, one might say that the second murder replicates almost all of the salient features of the first kill. That profile suggests that they were chosen at random, they were in the process of picking up strange men at the time, and they were impaired in some form or another. One drunk, one weakened. As stated above, without knowing that either Liz, or Kate, or Mary were soliciting at the time they meet their killer.....(the evidence points away from that suggestion in the case of Stride, and Marys death in her own bed and while undressed suggests someone closer to her than some stranger she picks up to service on the streets), ...we cannot assume that the killer either changed his stripes or his choice of victim. We do have other men that have killed or will kill within the same area at that time. And who may also be killing and mutilating strangers and Unfortunates, like in the case of Tabram and the Torso. To ignore the entirety of evil available in the East End at the time in favor of a single madman for all violent acts is an absurd position to take.

So..although you seem to feel that no-one knows anything about what happened and who may have been the culprit, there are indeed clues to those answers within the known facts. Such as.....a man who demonstrates a desire to mutilate after he kills twice in a row isnt likely to be sated with less, or to choose less.

The comments by Observer are as usual banal and without any value to the discussion, but I suppose every forum needs a dysfunctional critic to balance the sane conversations. More entertaining anyway...though hardly inspirational.

Cheers

[Observer]

The comments by Observer are as usual banal and without any value to the discussion, but I suppose every forum needs a dysfunctional critic to balance the sane conversations. More entertaining anyway...though hardly inspirational.

Discuss this, post 2071 http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...058#post282058 a subject you seem to have neatly avoided.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Observer. You're the dysfunctional critic of the Stride case and Richards is the sane and facts based conversationalists. That was my laugh for the day.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious]

Exactly what is the evidence that multiple men were killing unfortunates in the East End at that time Mike? Predisposing what you or anyone else believes "Jack" should have done is not evidence, but a predisposition - same as the folks espousing the other point of view. Eveyone seems to know how "Jack" operated or should have conducted himself. He didn't kill Stride 'cause she wasn't mutilated. He did kill Stride, but was interrupted before he could mutilate. We don't even know who "he" was... even though there's a bunch of folks who think they do.

The certain thing is that no one - not one individual - was apprehended and convicted of any of these murders - not even just one of them - and even though they investigated each one individually as was their procedure. That speaks volumes in itself. It certainly is indicative of something unusual, unless you are of the belief that the police were either so unfortunate or stupid in investigating this series of murders when they usually weren't otherwise.

Hi, Hunter, All,
In the back of my mind runs the thought that in cases such as these, the authorities withhold certain things so that when a "suspect or person of interest" knows about these items the authorities know they're on to something real.

With that ever (or most of the time) running through my mind, it also occurs to me that perhaps what was being held back were details that very definitely pointed to the same killer — perhaps each crime scene or victim possessed something that was present at all the others considered to be the work of one man (and perhaps only certain of the authorities were clued in).

curious

[Michael W Richards]

Discuss this, post 2071 http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...058#post282058 a subject you seem to have neatly avoided.

You show me a contemporary photograph of a street that has changed dramatically as your proof Spooner need not have seen Schwartz in 1888?

I admit my wording "had to have" was a little strong, but I dont see anything wrong with that contention overall at all. Peripherally or directly. And you conveniently omit Brown as well....someone who saw the young couple at the corner, not Liz, at 12:45am.

There are a few ways to deal with your contention that the fact no other witness sees or hears the altercation is somehow validation of Israel's story, if youd prefer we can discuss some other ways.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi, Hunter, All,
In the back of my mind runs the thought that in cases such as these, the authorities withhold certain things so that when a "suspect or person of interest" knows about these items the authorities know they're on to something real.

With that ever (or most of the time) running through my mind, it also occurs to me that perhaps what was being held back were details that very definitely pointed to the same killer — perhaps each crime scene or victim possessed something that was present at all the others considered to be the work of one man (and perhaps only certain of the authorities were clued in).

curious

If there has been information that has been suppressed or withheld that is evidence of a single killer of all Five women, then I would welcome it. I am fairly certain that if such information exists it would be in the files of the Special Branch or Home Office, since its been discovered that they indeed conducted their own investigation into some of the alleged Ripper crimes. They also had some different ideas about why the killing took place at all. So... Lets see them.

Im not in these discussions to be correct...as some other would like to see themselves, ..Im in it for answers. The suggestions are to spark conversations, the confrontations are about what is reality and what is legend or myth. Im not into more speculation about interruptions and absent Inquest witnesses and the metamorphosis of a killers profile. All unsubstantiated malarky.

The simple truth is based upon what is known publicly, is that Elizabeth Stride was murdered with a single cut a few yards into a property owned and operated by Immigrant Jews. The simple truth is that her murder does not remarkably resemble any other Canonical murder, and that the reason for her being where she was and the reason she is killed may have had nothing at all to do with solicitation...a key element in the previous 2 consecutive so-called Ripper kills. Without knowing specifically why Liz was killed we cannot begin to assign guilt on any suspect, Jack included, and we certainly cant in good conscience just pretend that we know she was killed by a man who randomly kills strangers so he can mutilate the corpse. Not if we are genuinely interested in the truth. Liz may well have been killed for reasons we have yet to uncover. Thats my point. To stop looking for that answer, Why, because you think you know the answer already, even without any proof, isnt a practical approach to solving any puzzles.

As to withholding evidence, we have clear evidence that the City Police did just that with Lawende,..announced openly...and at the Inquest. We have no such evidence about Israel.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Michael,

You go on and on about the lack of mutilations in the Stride case. Do you ever consider that there could be a reason for this if Jack were her killer?

c.d.

[Observer]

You show me a contemporary photograph of a street that has changed dramatically as your proof Spooner need not have seen Schwartz in 1888?

Absolutely. The length of the street has not changed. This, together with the lighting conditions, and the split second it took Schwartz to clear Fairclough Street, it's clear to me that Spooner would have needed the eyes of a hawk to have seen Schwartz cross Fairclough Street. And this is assuming that he was indeed facing the relevant direction and actually paying attention. It's not rocket science !

I admit my wording "had to have" was a little strong, but I dont see anything wrong with that contention overall at all.

I do. See above.

Peripherally or directly. And you conveniently omit Brown as well....someone who saw the young couple at the corner, not Liz, at 12:45am.

Herein lies your greatest problem. The fact that you believe all the witnesses wandered around Whitechapel with atomic clocks strapped to their wrists.

There are a few ways to deal with your contention that the fact no other witness sees or hears the altercation is somehow validation of Israel's story, if youd prefer we can discuss some other ways.

Fire away. However, make sure you walk, don't run.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mondo turdburger

And of course Richards conveniently (and repeatedly) omits the fact that the 'young couple' he refers to had not been at the corner since midnight and thus could not have been the couple witnessed by James Brown. But we mustn't let facts get in the way of a good....well, in his case, lousy...theory.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Observer]

Hi Observer. You're the dysfunctional critic of the Stride case and Richards is the sane and facts based conversationalists. That was my laugh for the day.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

Get ready for even more sane fact based conversation ! Mike's on a roll !

Regards

Observer

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom

Get ready for even more sane fact based conversation ! Mike's on a roll !

Regards

Observer

Believe me, I'm taking notes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott