Did jack kill liz stride?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Celesta,

Trevor has apparently so many points to discuss...

And do you know how many threads he has started ?

One.

Amitiés ma chère,
David

I dont need to start a thread there are sufficent posters on here who regulary post on the various isssues. Its easier for me to comment.

What DVV has posted in my mind relates to a double edged sword and in part he is correct that people are set in their ways and views and are not prepared to change. However when they are asked to provide evidence or facts to support their views they are at a loss.

I try to not keep imposing my own personal beleifs on posters here but to give and example with regards to the point I raised is with the suggestion that the killer removed the organs. There are many on here who still belived the killer did. However when you ask them to provide some coroboration they are unable to do so. Yet what i have introduced on the topic clearly casts a major doubt. But come hell and high water some will not re consider their own beliefs. This is just one example and i dont intend to start another argument on that specific topic.

Remember the old saying "The truth hurts"

[Phil Carter]

Perhaps everyone should work as a team, hmmmmm cant see that happening to many egos at risk.

Hello Trevor,

I wholeheartedly agree.

best wishes

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

With regard to the: "no...no...no".....in a low voice.

Not sure who posted this but it was suggested that this was an indication that she knew the killer and a few people went with it and it wasn't really challenged.

I thought about this.....and came to the conclusion that the people I know tend to be louder with people they know. The social niceities that demand that you maintain your tone and watch what you say go out of the window when with someone you know.

The other point I considered was that the killer simply directed the tone of the conversation - known or otherwise. He spoke softly....so she spoke softly....and so on. I don't remember too many conversations I've had where one person is shouting and the other is speaking softly. Humans tend to follow one another.

[Hunter]

[B]
I try to not keep imposing my own personal beleifs on posters here but to give and example with regards to the point I raised is with the suggestion that the killer removed the organs. There are many on here who still belived the killer did. However when you ask them to provide some coroboration they are unable to do so.

This is a shame, Trevor, for many of your opinions of late I have found myself in agreement with and I do value and respect your service in law enforcement, and This is a Stride thread, but I can not let a comment like that go by.

"Coroboration" that the killer did remove the organs was provided by me on the recent anatomical thread by the physicians reports themselves. If there is anyone out there that agrees with your opinion on that matter, state so now and we will start another thread to discuss this again... I will be more than happy to re-enter that debate, but this is not the thread to do so.

You might garner more consideration from others here if you would come down from your high horse and not make personal insults to people who don't share your views. I personally don't mind being called "Buffalo Bill' or any other stereotypical jargon about my culture. I thought it was comical, but there may be others that don't feel the same. As far as Elizabeth Stride's murder is concerned, anyone that says that a certain person definately did or didn't kill her needs to show the conclusive proof to back it up... 'cause there aint any. I have stated that I believe that JTR is a likely candidate, based on the evidence that we have, but nothing more... As for your opinion of Tom Wescott... it is an opinion that I do not share. He is a competent researcher and an emminent authority on this aspect of the case. If you have new evidence, as you suggest, bring it forward and enlighten us all... otherwise you would serve your good self better to tone down your rhetoric.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is a shame, Trevor, for many of your opinions of late I have found myself in agreement with and I do value and respect your service in law enforcement, and This is a Stride thread, but I can not let a comment like that go by.

"Coroboration" that the killer did remove the organs was provided by me on the recent anatomical thread by the physicians reports themselves. If there is anyone out there that agrees with your opinion on that matter, state so now and we will start another thread to discuss this again... I will be more than happy to re-enter that debate, but this is not the thread to do so.

You might garner more consideration from others here if you would come down from your high horse and not make personal insults to people who don't share your views. I personally don't mind being called "Buffalo Bill' or any other stereotypical jargon about my culture. I thought it was comical, but there may be others that don't feel the same. As far as Elizabeth Stride's murder is concerned, anyone that says that a certain person definately did or didn't kill her needs to show the conclusive proof to back it up... 'cause there aint any. I have stated that I believe that JTR is a likely candidate, based on the evidence that we have, but nothing more... As for your opinion of Tom Wescott... it is an opinion that I do not share. He is a competent researcher and an emminent authority on this aspect of the case. If you have new evidence, as you suggest, bring it forward and enlighten us all... otherwise you would serve your good self better to tone down your rhetoric.

Well is is no surpise that you have chosen to reply and lo and behold you choose to raise the issue of the organ removal. It is a classic case of what i have been refrring to. You have been proved wrong with you reasoning and views on the topic yet you still wont accept the facts as they are.

A lot of my new evidence has been widely published and discussed maybe you should buy and read copy of "The Evil Within" There are many new issues regading the organ removals contained therein.

I am not bothered whether you share my opoinion of Tom Wescott even the best and most resepcted of researchers are not always right.It a shame that when they are proved wrong they arent big enough to accept it.

[Hunter]

You raised the organ removal issue, Trevor, on this thread. While even the best of researchers can be wrong, and you, of all people should know that, it is your personal comment about Tom, not his research, that I was referring to. The fact that you consider others that don't agree with you blind or "blinkered" instead of debating the issue they are discussing itself is a display of arrogance that does little to promote your views.

[Celesta]

Hi Celesta,

Trevor has apparently so many points to discuss...

And do you know how many threads he has started ?

One.

Amitiés ma chère,
David

Hi David,

People move at their own pace. When they have something they especially want to say or want to introduce an issue, they'll start a thread when they're ready.

Hope you're having a nice day in Provence.

[Trevor Marriott]

You raised the organ removal issue, Trevor, on this thread. While even the best of researchers can be wrong, and you, of all people should know that, it is your personal comment about Tom, not his research, that I was referring to. The fact that you consider others that don't agree with you blind or "blinkered" instead of debating the issue they are discussing itself is a display of arrogance that does little to promote your views.

I didnt raise it i used it as an example. I clearly stated i did not wish to debate it "yet again" in my post.

As far as I am concerned i do not wish to discuss it further it is a topic that has been discussed many times and as i keep saying its a matter for each and every individual to assess and evaluate all the facts concerning the "fors" and "against" and come to a sensible conclusion.

Personally I dont care if others disagree with me I know that there are sufficient facts (not wild theories) to support my beliefs.

Others who disagree should either put up or shut.

[Garry Wroe]

As far as Elizabeth Stride's murder is concerned, anyone that says that a certain person definately did or didn't kill her needs to show the conclusive proof to back it up... 'cause there aint any. I have stated that I believe that JTR is a likely candidate, based on the evidence that we have, but nothing more...

With all due respect, Hunter, that works both ways. Plenty of people insist that Stride was a Ripper victim but provide little or nothing in the way of substantiation. When viewed objectively, however, the evidence points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. The throat incision was at variance to those injuries sustained by the known victims. The lack of asphyxiation represents another departure from the killer’s established mode of attack. The fact that Stride was discovered whilst lying on her side rather than in a supine position also mediates against this being an aborted Ripper attack. The bloodflow from the throat wound as well as its associated coagulation are each suggestive of an attack that occurred much earlier than is often supposed. If so, the theory that Diemschutz interrupted the killer and thereby deprived him of the opportunity to eviscerate Stride is a non-starter. This revised timeframe would also indicate the near-certainty that Broad Shoulders was the killer. The problem here is that Broad Shoulders was not only visibly drunk, but commenced his attack on Stride in full view of two onlookers. Not content with this, he racially abused one or both of these passers by. Contrast this behaviour with the calm and controlled individual sighted by Lawende and company and the difference is that of night and day. The alternative, of course, is that Stride was first assaulted by Broad Shoulders, recovered, then had the misfortune to encounter Jack the Ripper. Whilst I wouldn’t altogether discount such a possibility, it does stretch credibility to within a micron of breaking point.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[c.d.]

Hi Garry,

If the BS man was Liz's killer, why did he proceed to kill her after being seen by two witnesses, one of whom ran off possibly to get the nearest PC? If he was in such a passionate rage why did Liz only give off three small screams and not appeal to Schwartz and the Pipe Man for help? Did she not realize the danger she was in?

How did the packet of cachous in Liz's hand remain unbroken after being thrown to the ground by the BS man?

How did the BS man get Liz to the spot where she was killed? If she was dragged and she was trying to fend him off, why did she not release the cachous? Why did no one at the club hear her screams? Eagle and Mrs. Diemschutz testified that they were confident that they would have heard screams even above the music.

It seems like these and other questions need to be answered before the BS man as Liz's killer takes on the status of virtual certainty.

c.d.

[Hunter]

Hi Gary,

Your points are well taken and I agree generally with the evidence that you stated. I also agree that the Diemshutz/ interruption theory is just that; a theory, promulgated on the day she was killed and perpetuated since then.

The reason why I consider the person who killed Eddowes to be a likely candidate for Stride's murder as well is that the police investigation turned up no suspects, though people were interrogated for such as it is standard practice and was so even in the Kelly murder. Most domestics are more violent, the victim receives some kind of warning, there is usually a struggle, a motive is established and the perpetrator is most often apprehended. Whoever killed her, in my opinion, intended to do so the minute he met her and managed to keep those intentions from her until he was able to strike. Her throat was cut from left to right and apparently while she was prostrate. But most important is the fact that Eddowes' murder followed soon after, which seems beyond coincidence. Known serial Killers have been unpredictable because they rarely behave rationally; they have often been found to have perpetrated more murders that originally thought, and if not for their capture would have escaped detection.

If Stride's murder had not happened in the middle of a series of unexplained killings of prostitutes and especially on the same night, in the same area as another, I would not give it as much consideration. Despite the nature of the East End, these types of murders were not that common and that's why it so shocked everyone.


That this murder lacks the signature of most of the other killings is quite apparent and rightfully bears consideration... But the fact that something out of the ordinary was going on at that time and Stride's murder was in the middle of it should be considered as well and lends plausibilty to suspect the individual known as Jack the Ripper.

[c.d.]

Whoever killed her, in my opinion, intended to do so the minute he met her and managed to keep those intentions from her until he was able to strike.

Hi Hunter,

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head here. "Managed to keep those intentions from her" explains the cachous since she would not have felt herself to be in a dangerous situation. I can't imagine how she would have felt that way had the BS man been her killer.

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

To my mind, CD, the Stride murder bears all the hallmarks of a 'domestic'. The 'quiet scream' suggests that Stride knew her killer. On this basis, she perhaps entered the yard of her own volition and with no inkling of what was to come. It's even possible that there was no homicidal intent on the part of her companion at this point. Most domestic-type killings come about as a consequence of a sudden escalation in emotions. Blind rage then takes over and precipitates a spontaneous outburst of violence. This, however, is no more than speculation on my part. Irrespective of the whys and wherefores, the evidence provides every indication that the Stride killing was non-Ripper related. Until such time as someone provides compelling evidence to the contrary, I will continue to regard it as just another red-herring.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[c.d.]

Hi Garry,

Yes, it most certainly could have been a domestic. But we have Swanson saying that her background was checked and people interviewed and the police could find no one with a motive. Also, if it was a domestic, why didn't anyone hear any arguing? Why wasn't Liz slapped around first? As Hunter stated, someone wanted her dead very quickly. I just don't see it as a domestic.

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

Naturally, Hunter, your points are well taken. Again, however, when all of the supposition is subtracted from the argument, the evidence is indicative of Stride as a non-Ripper victim. I explored this possibility in some detail in my book and even evaluated other elements such as Fanny Mortimer. Whilst I can well understand why some are happy to accept the notion of a double event, I cannot subscribe to such a view on the basis of the present evidence.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.