Did jack kill liz stride?

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

His 'theatrical appearance' has nothing to do with his reliability. In my post above I stated a few reasons why I question his evidence. I agree that his statement is within reason, although it is extremely similar to Mr. Violina of Hanbury Street fame, a completed discredited witness. Also, if it's proved as I imagine it will be one day, that Schwartz had an affiliation to the Berner Street club, then there you have a motive to lie. Until that happens, it's all just my speculation that Schwartz lied.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate,

His 'theatrical appearance' has nothing to do with his reliability.

Agreed

In my post above I stated a few reasons why I question his evidence. I agree that his statement is within reason, although it is extremely similar to Mr. Violina of Hanbury Street fame, a completed discredited witness. Also, if it's proved as I imagine it will be one day, that Schwartz had an affiliation to the Berner Street club, then there you have a motive to lie. Until that happens, it's all just my speculation that Schwartz lied.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Sorry Tom, I've not been following this thread that closely. I have been working on 'what is known'. Perhaps you could outline exactly what, in schwartz's statement, is unreliable?

Obviously Know one can be expected to factor in something that might be discovered next year...even Derek Acorah's not that good?

Pirate

[corey123]

And my post on my own thread goes unnoticed. No comments? Tom? Pirate?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Corey,

I didn't understand your post. You provided your own 'profile' of Stride's killer, then said the profile was no good. You say her killer is the same but different from the others. What response would you expect or did I miss something?

Pirate,

I'll have to attack this some other time because I'm about ready to leave work and don't have internet access at home.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[corey123]

Tom,

I made a profile of Strides killer based on the evidence, but note that I say it is only right if the circumstances play out. Which I dont believe they did.

I am sorry if it was confusing.

Let me try to clearify.

I was saying that if I made a profile of Strides killer, based on the opinion that the circumstances that played out that day were:
1)The killer was not Jack
2)The killer was not intending to mutilate
3)The throat wound was the only intention
4)The killer was not interupted.

If the above happened then the profile I provided would be close if not exactly correct.

However, if the circumstances were changed, perhaps like so:
1)The killer was Jack the Ripper
2)He had difficulty getting her into the ally way
3)His primary intention was mutilation
4)Something ruined the oppertunity to play out his fantasy.
Say he was interpted, or felt he had ruined the murder, or some other circumstance that would leave him unable to perform the fantasy, then the profile I suggested would be almost wholly incorrect.

Tom, I am with you. I too believe stride to be a ripper victim. I only point out that it really comes down to which senerio you believe in whether you count Stride as a ripper victim or not. Two profiles can be made for one killer, based almost wholly on circumstance. But as we dont know which of the two played out we can only offer the two of them.

Yours truly

[Sox]

Ok to start of with a profile of Strides killer.
1)The killer did not initiat contact, so lacking social skills, he stalked her, "blitz" attacking her.
2)The wound was incomplete, with the partial severance of the carotid artery, so may suggest a hesatent killer.
3)He let her fall to her side, and most likely ran away. Not possesing the daring of the ripper.
4)No other recent injuries besides the throat wound, so the primary intention(that I can profilifically suggest) was not mutilations.

No offence Corey but, every single one of those four points have already been addressed elsewhere in this thread so you are, in effect, bringing us back to square one, again.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Corey B

I wasn’t intending to be rude; I’m just trying to keep a low profile, and sticking only to the factual at present, not supposition.

But yes your assessment is correct, it is a matter of opinion and how you see the crimes that must decide your inclusion of Liz as a victim or NOT.

There is no rule that predicts how serial killers will or will not behave. That is only for detectives in Hollywood films…

Pirate

[corey123]

Sox,

I think you missed the point. The point was not the points I addressed, but how we see Liz as a ripper victim or not.

Pirate,

Of coarse, only for hollywood detectives, and the FBI.

Yours truly

p.s Sox, I think I have the right to go back to square one in my own thread if need be. For there is no square one, every detail matters, and in the case of Stride, there is no begining or ending.

Thanks

[harry]

Tom,
It's not theorising to state that heavy rain had fallen that night,nor is it theorising to say to say that heavy rain would have washed dirt or debris away.Dr phillips remarks of mud on the face and in the hair,are,as far as I have read,the only remarks as to the presence of mud being anywhere.Dr Blackwell,the first doctor on the scene at Duffield yard,gave evidence that he carefully examined the body and the surroundings.He makes no mention of mud,either on the body,clothes,or yard.In fact he declared the clothing to be quite dry.
Phillip's notice of mud on the face and in the hair was made at the post mortem on the Monday afternoon,many hours after discovery of the body.Neither Phillips,Blackwell,or the police,as far as I am aware,reported mud on the clothes.So it's theorising to say that the mud on the face or clothing,was as a result of mud in the yard.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Harry,

I'm not interested in a semantical discussion. She was lying on the ground on her left side. Her left side was muddy. If you want to call it 'theorizing' to suggest one had to do with the other, then I won't try to stop you from calling it that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sox]

Hi Harry,

I'm not interested in a semantical discussion. She was lying on the ground on her left side. Her left side was muddy. If you want to call it 'theorizing' to suggest one had to do with the other, then I won't try to stop you from calling it that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

He does have a point though Tom, because this is reported at the post-mortem and not at the scene, it is conceivable for the mud to have gotten there when they removed the body from the yard.

[Hunter]

Mud

He does have a point though Tom, because this is reported at the post-mortem and not at the scene, it is conceivable for the mud to have gotten there when they removed the body from the yard.

Hi Sox,

I believe you are correct about the post mortem, but the mud was on her left side- the same side she had been laying on. When she was removed she probably was placed on her back.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[harry]

Hunter,
Don't you think that with the kind of roads and conveyances of the time,that even with a body laid on it's back,the head may flopped from side to side.In addition,could not the face have contacted the path outside the gate in the first encounter?

[Tom_Wescott]

The question we should be asking is why wasn't her backside or at least her knees dirty if Schwartz was telling the truth about seeing someone push her down.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

Hunter,
Don't you think that with the kind of roads and conveyances of the time,that even with a body laid on it's back,the head may flopped from side to side.In addition,could not the face have contacted the path outside the gate in the first encounter?

That is a good point Harry. I would think, however, that by the time her body was removed rigamortis would have begun to set in. It may be hard to imagine a great deal of mud after so much rain, but she was laying in effect over a slight gutter where much of the filth would have settled.

Best Wishes,
Hunter