Did jack kill liz stride?

[Cap'n Jack]

'Same with Sam Flynn, so apparently it's a disease not relegated only to the cranks.'

But Tom, Sam is Welsh.
His family must be hiding him from the authorities.

[perrymason]

Ok...I have to respond to the soap box kids...

You note within your own speech Sox that you acknowledge most of what is available is without any hard proof at all...while at the same time decrying others who suggest ideas that have not been vetted properly and as such are not necessarily "unprovable". The standard lines still are though...unprovable. And all you have ever had to do to prove to me that Kate was killed by the same man that killed Liz, or the one that killed Annie, is to provide proof. There is none...no matter how wonderful you see the entrenched dogma it is counterproductive to truth seeking. And I didnt say I thought anything....I said I KNOW. In a different Ripperology world any information discovered that is important to the study would be readily shared so all can utilize the data in some way....in the actual world, information such as that is weaponry that can defeat dogma....and no-one lays down their weapons in battle, do they?

And with some modicum of respect for the body of work Tom, I dont see any investigative value in most of the sidebar Ripper topics that are covered in publications you might write for. Its all very interesting of course, but little relates to the Elephant in the room....which is... where is any proof for any of these fanciful opinions many seem to cling to regarding a serial killer of five?

What goes round goes round again.

Ok.....Im sure you can understand the need to rebut trash talk, particularly when I did as I said and deleted the subscription....which will be done again now.

re-hash away...

[Cap'n Jack]

And I must say that I fully endorse Michael's stance on this thread, because he is attempting to slay a dragon with a single sword swipe whilst four people per dragon's leg lift the dragon into the air to avoid his swipe.
But that swipe will come.
I'll have a double gin in meantime.
Make that a long one.

[Supe]

Tom,

and Don Souden, who has published about 10 essays

Actually closer to 20, but as the old punchline went, who's counting? Point is, though, that we both have put our ideas out for extended peer review and--wonder of wonders--have both escaped that process relatively unscathed. And, when wrong, we admit it and move on rather than bailing out of a thread.

And for those scoring at home, Eddowes almost assuredly died from a single cut to the throat. In the first two Canonic Five muders, two cuts are specifically mentioned. In Stride's case, which we know was a single cut, that wound is referred to as "the cut," just as was done with Eddowes.

As to why the Ripper changed from two cuts to one, well speculation on that topic can be found in "Suede and the Ripper" in Ripperologist 104 (July 2009).

Don.

[Natalie Severn]

And I must say that I fully endorse Michael's stance on this thread, because he is attempting to slay a dragon with a single sword swipe whilst four people per dragon's leg lift the dragon into the air to avoid his swipe.
But that swipe will come.
I'll have a double gin in meantime.
Make that a long one.

ah said the parson wiping his eye,damn good job that cows dont fly

[Tom_Wescott]

20 essays, Don? I'm not counting pie charts.

Michael,

You demand proof, but when it's not to your liking, you ignore it. I can't even 'prove' Stride was murdered. If the club members wanted to keep the body a secret at 12:40, why did they run the streets screaming 'Murder'? They must have done this for Spooner - your primary witness as to the time - to have come to the scene. In choosing this route, you're ignoring the evidence of James Brown, who was on the street around 12:45 and heard no cries, but who clearly heard them 15 minutes later, at the same time as everyone else. And you don't even stop to consider what the club members would have had to gain by this 20 minute subterfuge. You just assume there was one. You now 'hint' that you have solid proof of this that you're unwilling to share. I wonder what AP Wolf would think of you holding your information hostage.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

'I wonder what AP Wolf would think of you holding your information hostage. '

Personally speaking I don't think Ap Wolf 'thinks' at all.
Just a ball of lightning that strikes, sometimes.
Send whisky, by the boatload, then I'll think.

[FrankO]

the point I was trying to make is this: As you correctly point out it was Blackwells opinion. Liz Stride could have tied the scarf tightly herself. If, as Blackwell thinks, the killer pulled her by the scarf to slit her throat then I would be expecting to see evidence of arterial spray, there was none.

Hi Sox,

Although I prefer Blackwell’s opinion over the possibility that she tied and knotted her scarf so tightly herself, I get your point and still agree with it: it was ‘just’ his opinion. Personally, I don’t think that, if Stride’s killer did pull her back by the scarf, he cut her throat while falling down. He could still have done so as soon as she hit the ground and then there would be no evidence of arterial spray either.

Anyhow, my point wasn’t so much to push Blackwell’s opinion, but rather that it’s not the clear cut case as you seemed to make it out to be with regards to Stride being a Ripper victim. But again, that’s just the way I see it.

And you’re quite right about those images...

[Tom_Wescott]

Sox,

Consider that the knife went along the edge of the scarf. To do this, the scarf must have been very tight. There's really no escaping the conclusion that the scarf was tightened to such an extent by her killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Oh my gosh! So all the victims killed themselves firstly by over doing the knot on their scarves?
Rose Mylett would revolve in her grave, if she had one.

[Observer]

Hi Tom

Presuming Schwartz's observation to be accurate, could her assailant have lifted her off the pavement by the scarf? This would have the effect of tightening the scarf around her neck.

all the best

Observer

[Sox]

Sox,

Consider that the knife went along the edge of the scarf. To do this, the scarf must have been very tight. There's really no escaping the conclusion that the scarf was tightened to such an extent by her killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hiya Tom, of course it is possible that the killer did it....but I am a stickler for detail.

'There was a check silk scarf around her neck, the bow of which was turned to the left side and pulled tightly'

As stated before, please note that he says that it was the bow which was tight. And further more......

I formed the opinion that the murderer first took hold of the silk scarf, at the back of it, and then pulled the deceased backwards

He says he thinks the killer grabbed her by the scarf from the back which would not, repeat not, tighten it. Try it for yourselves. Tie a piece of cloth around a broom handle, making sure to fasten it with a tight bow but leaving it loose enough to slide up and down the handle.....pull it from the back and see...voila, the scarf does not get tighter around the pole because the bow keeps it constant.

[Hunter]

Hello everyone,

This, from the Evening News . It probably has little bearing on the case, but it struck me as odd.

The house which adjoins the yard on the south side, No. 38, is tenanted by Barnett Kentorrich, who, (sic) as to whether he heard any disturbance during the night, said: I went to bed early, and slept till about three o'clock, during which time I heard no unusual sound of any description. At three o'clock some people were talking loudly outside my door, so I went out to se what was the matter, and learned that a woman had been murdered. I did not stay out long though, and know nothing more about it. I do not think the yard bear a very good character at night, but I do not interfere with any of the people about here. I know that the gate is not kept fastened.

Now, this fellow's front door is only 2 bricks length to the south edge of the yard, and yet he didn't hear anything until 3 o'clock. I wish I could sleep as well as he.

It is hard to imagine, now, just how dark the area just inside the gates must have been. The lights from the club side door and tenement windows across were well back into the yard. The width at the front, 9 feet, between two story structures would have cast a shadow in daylight- let alone at night- no matter where the street lights were. Liz may have known when the club's meetings closed and didn't figure on the side door being used. Her companion probably didn't know unless he had frequented the club himself. I have posted before that I think that all of the WM victims were soliciting- and will be glad to summarize why on another post or thread, based on the habits of street prostitutes at that time. What I want everyone to do is think about the location and why Liz would be there and then, why should she be murdered there.

I will not digress any more at this time, and I know this thread has been long and has deviated from its original intent but I believe for us to decide if Elizabeth Stride was killed by JTR or someone else, given the conflicting testimonies, and various theories that have formulated because of that, we might do well to start with the location and why Liz was there.

On closing I will add that it was raining from about 9 PM until about 12:30 PM.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Sox]

Hiya Hunter

I think Dutfields Yard makes as much sense as Mitre Square or Hanbury Street does as far as a murder site goes....which is basically none at all. On the other hand, all three are pretty good for prostitutes wishing to service their clients.

Maybe Liz was there to see about some work, she was known to char for Jews, and perhaps she knew that someone she had worked for used that club? Or it could just be that one of the men she chose to stop and talk to that night was a very bad choice indeed.

The spot where she is found dead really makes no sense. It is too close to the clubs side door to be considered for the privacy a prostitute would need, added to that is the fact that people could clearly be heard inside & the gates are wide open. Further inside the yard then yes, it is dark an offers seclusion, but not where her body is found.

Maybe poor Liz realised she was in danger, maybe she realised, in those final moments, just exactly who it was she was with, and the man had no choice but to kill her there, before they had a chance to go further into the yard.

[Hunter]

Hello Sox,

The lines of your thinking is just what I was asking for- Begin at the begining if you will. If I find a note of difference in perspective of location it is that according to the descriptions of the yard at that time, it was better lighted towards the back than the front- due to the high corners of the buildings, the narrow passage and the lighted windows farther to the back. I know as a contractor- used to surveying blueprints and their proper scale- it was initially difficult for me to perceive just how small Dutfields Yard was and the effect that ambient lighting would have on such a constricted area.

Street prostitutes at that time tried to find as secluded a spot for themselves and their client as quickly as possible after the "deal" had been struck. It was obvious - by witnesses, if they can be relied on- that Liz was in the area after the rain had subsided. If you analize a map of that area you will see that there were not many places close to the pubs that offered at least temporary seclusion for business. These women never ventured far from the spot of the initial transaction to the location of completion... Just look at the last known location of the other victims and where they were found dead.

I believe that before we adhere to various theories or even the testimonies of witnesses- to some extent- we should understand what placed these women in the final locations that they were found and why they were there. It could very well be be that Liz was associated with someone at the club or she led someone there. Its not clear.

Best Wishes,
Hunter