Did jack kill liz stride?

[Tom_Wescott]

so I can now add Jane to the growing list of people you've personally insulted lately.

Only if Jane's selfworth is determined by my acceptance of a single illustration of hers would she consider my comment a 'personal insult'. Jane's not you, Michael.

You may be under the belief that your rudeness coupled with your "unique" perspective entitles you to decide on who posts here,...that wouldnt be correct.

That's quite obvious, since I'm replying to yet another post of yours that is interrupting good discussion.

I certainly didnt stop posting because youre rude and often inaccurate....I stopped because I was arguing with people whose opinions are based purely on Ripper conjecture, not on any existing evidence. Like your "Mutilatus Interruptus".

You haven't stopped posting at all, you silly white man.

As far as Dutfield's Yard being good for 'ripping', I frankly don't think any of the Ripper's murder sites were good choices for murder. My point is that in Hanbury Street he chose NOT to take Chapman back behind the shadows of the privy, but instead to killer her next to the door where he could affect his escape quickly if necessary. In Mitre Square he killed Eddowes in the darkest corner closest to an exit. In Buck's Row, he could hear anyone approaching from any direction before they could see him. If he killed in the back of Dutfield's yard he'd run a higher risk of being apprehended on his way out of the yard.

We done now?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Tom,

there is one thing you don't understand.

When Mike stops posting he keeps posting, cos he's delighted by keeping stop posting.
In fact, he never stopped keeping posting.
And lastly, came stopping posting then stop again to keep posting.

It's cultural, there.

Amitiés,
David

[Hunter]

Hi Tom,
My reference to The fire engine was toungue and cheek. The point was that Eddowes was arrested for being drunk and disordily. The arrests of Stride, I believe were for the same reason. The cops didn't really bother the "unfortunates" for working. Your point about escape routes in other murders as opposed to near the gate at Dutfields Yard is what I have been trying to make for the length of the thread. You were more consise.

[perrymason]

Only if Jane's selfworth is determined by my acceptance of a single illustration of hers would she consider my comment a 'personal insult'. Jane's not you, Michael.

Calling her reconstruction inaccurate without providing any proof of the statement constitutes an insult. Perhaps insults are so ingrained with you that you have lost comprehension of what actually constitutes one. In the same way that your many "statements" seem to offend many people with active and functional cerebellums.

That's quite obvious, since I'm replying to yet another post of yours that is interrupting good discussion.

Any "discussion" by you without dissenting opinions based on known data is just you self flagellating....Im guessing since you are so vehement about having the ONLY say in these matters that "solitary" vice is a malleable concept.

You haven't stopped posting at all, you silly white man.

White, Black or Red Man, this is the only thread related post I have made since my departure. Not surprised at all that you would categorize people in that way though.

As far as Dutfield's Yard being good for 'ripping', I frankly don't think any of the Ripper's murder sites were good choices for murder.

I would guess then that you and whomever the killer was differ with respect to what was a suitable location.

My point is that in Hanbury Street he chose NOT to take Chapman back behind the shadows of the privy, but instead to killer her next to the door where he could affect his escape quickly if necessary.

No, as I said, he chose to take her, or follow her, down a hallway inside a house to a backyard that was empty. It seems that he felt comfortable enough to complete his objectives in a deserted yard....some distance from a street he might use to escape on.

In Mitre Square he killed Eddowes in the darkest corner closest to an exit.

I believe it was the darkest spot....not that it was the darkest near any exits....and since police enter 2 of the 3 exits available likely while he was there and just as he left, he once again completes his objective and leaves without any obvious interference or interruptions. Being alone with his victim was once again, paramount.

In Buck's Row, he could hear anyone approaching from any direction before they could see him.

Since the only 2 obvious locations people might come from to walk in Bucks Row at that time of night was from one of the 2 open ends of the street, if he heard anyone they would see him as he escapes. Yet he killed there too.

If he killed in the back of Dutfield's yard he'd run a higher risk of being apprehended on his way out of the yard.

If he killed in the back of Dutfields Yard he would have had more time alone with his victim, which seemed to be a goal of the killers before and after Liz Stride....and since Liz has no wounds that constitute a "Ripping", and her location is the least probable spot to remain undisturbed due to the fact that any people in that yard would enter the passageway she is killed in, not the yard itself, it would seem that her killer was less concerned with privacy than he was with making Liz dead quickly.

We done now?

Since Ive hardly agreed with anything you post regarding the Ripper theories you have, we never actually got started having a real discussion Tom in all the time Ive been here. You post something with conviction and think its enough to warrant attention and to be the foundation for further discussions...then when its inevitably shot down....(like IWMEC being mistaken by all the investigators that saw the GSG for "Jewes/Juwes/Juewes")....you simply insult the source who contradicted you.

What Ive said from day 1 hasnt changed, that the evidence does not allow for a conclusion that a Canonical Group is where the study should begin. Yet it is the opinion that you and some of your rat pack.....like Norder was...seem to buy into. He was well liked for his convivial manners as well.

I dont, and many others on the planet feel the same way as I do.....so...either accept adversity and meet the challenges with some actual knowledge, or insult anyone who claims that other answers might be more reasonable.

I think I already know your preferences there....so does anyone who reads your posts.

If it so happens that I do make other posts, I would suggest that you block them using the feature available to you in the User Preferences. That way I wont have to respond to petty insecure thoughts as they happen to occur to you, and you wont have the desire to make them.

Thanks for the nice welcome David and Hunter.

[corey123]

Mike,


Sorry, but at this point you have issulted everyone who believes the opposite of you. Calling them as apart of the "Rat pack" of Tom Wescott. I have always had the upmost respect for you.

I have ALWAYS set and met the challenge of debating your wild ideas of the Fenain connetion with KNOWLEDGABLE evidence, you know the evidence is really not even there to assume that their was a Fenian connection. The only bases you have is the idea that there was a "Smaoke screne" but all we have is all the circumstancial evidence and all the physical and medical evidence. If you actually have evidence about it, stop talking and show some.


I makes me wounder, why say you will leave the forum, and then return to insult others.

If you have no interest in this thread other than to fight your battles, stop commenting here.

I have always have had respect for you, but when you call all those who believe in the Canonicle to be apart of some "Rat Pack" on my own thread, is drawing the line.

So if you are to comment on this thread, please be respectful to the others who believe what I believe. As I have respected and will continue to respect you.
Thanks.
Your Friend

p.s I am not definding anyone, but you keep on saying that the canonicle has no evidence, that we have always been on the wrong track, that we have no real platform for suspicion to a ripper serial killer. I am pretty much fed up of hearing it. You can find a kind way of spreding your theory, without offinding so many.

[corey123]

Hello all,

After that short out burst , you guys can continue this wounderful Stride thread. Even you Mike. As long as you keep it to a minimum of insults .

Yours truly

[perrymason]

Mike,

Sorry, but at this point you have issulted everyone who believes the opposite of you. Calling them as apart of the "Rat pack" of Tom Wescott. I have always had the upmost respect for you.

I have ALWAYS set and met the challenge of debating your wild ideas of the Fenain connetion with KNOWLEDGABLE evidence, you know the evidence is really not even there to assume that their was a Fenian connection. The only bases you have is the idea that there was a "Smaoke screne" but all we have is all the circumstancial evidence and all the physical and medical evidence. If you actually have evidence about it, stop talking and show some.


I makes me wounder, why say you will leave the forum, and then return to insult others.

If you have no interest in this thread other than to fight your battles, stop commenting here.

I have always have had respect for you, but when you call all those who believe in the Canonicle to be apart of some "Rat Pack" on my own thread, is drawing the line.

So if you are to comment on this thread, please be respectful to the others who believe what I believe. As I have respected and will continue to respect you.
Thanks.
Your Friend

p.s I am not definding anyone, but you keep on saying that the canonicle has no evidence, that we have always been on the wrong track, that we have no real platform for suspicion to a ripper serial killer. I am pretty much fed up of hearing it. You can find a kind way of spreding your theory, without offinding so many.

Hi corey,

Youre a decent fellow and haven't directly insulted me personally, so I have no grievance with you on any personal level, but to be clear, a thread doesnt belong to you or anyone, all that belongs to you are the comments you make to start one or to contribute to one.

Youve obviously missed the salient fact that I have responded to insults with the same, I dont insult people personally unless they have chosen to do so to me first.

The only reason I would contribute to a thread at this point, as I pointed out yesterday, is to correct something that was a flagrant inaccuracy. There were no cottages within Dutfields Yard itself to intimidate a killer with his victim...as Tom stated there were. In fact it was a far superior location for a murder like Annie's or Kate's, had pm mutilation been a driver for Liz Strides murderer.

As to the serial killer premise, Im glad for you that you feel enough evidence is available to warrant a conclusion, but from a prosectutorial stance, nothing that is in the historical records we have access to can confirm that suspicion of yours. Rather than accepting a serial killer of at least 5 as a start to your study.....any such conclusions should come at the end of your evaluations, once they can be demonstrably proven.

Saying you accept the premise is one thing...being able to prove it has eluded more than a century of enthusiasts like yourself. And suggesting that any poster should buy into that idea if he wants to post on a thread you started implies your ownership of the thread...which is in fact incorrect. All posts and threads here belong to the Casebook administrators and that is represented by the fact that the discussions you have with people are sold to students at years end as part of packaged Casebook Forums, without yours or anyone's specific approval or consent. Which is eminently fair....since they provide this fantastic resource without demanding fees.

My point in posting hasnt changed since day one....to offer suggestions and ideas that challenge the unproven accepted premises so that new people to the study have varied perspectives, since many "experts" tell students what to believe, they dont suggest answers. Im sure youve noticed that virtually every book written about Jack has assumed a number of kills that can be associated with one mans "madness"....yet none have proven that even a Canonical Group is a valid concept.When a premise is unproven its a hypothesis or a belief....and thats what your serial killer concept is as of this moment.

Finally, I do know somethings that I have not shared here because the source shared information with me privately and requested that I not discuss the information with others. The provenance is impeccable. It will be theirs alone to reveal when they choose to. I will tell you only that the information is from a source within relevant institutions that has physical proof. In fact, some "experts" might already know some of this due to their own sources. One might wonder if that is the case why they wouldnt be forthcoming about it. That question may have answers in the Jack the Ripper industry as a whole....which has been proven financially fruitful for many, many people. It would be really terrific to be able to post it so it can be known definitively that some of what I and others suggested over the past few years is actually provable...but proving myself correct to silence naysayers would simply be an ego matter....the eventual revelation of some real truth is a far more important principle.

I may be on from time to time, I may not, I may have my profile deleted as per my request...so I would suggest that you dont post anything directly to me from this point on.

Regards

[The Good Michael]

You know, Tom brings up an excellent point about escape routes. It wasn't complete obfuscation that the Ripper needed, though it would have been helpful. It was a way to bolt out of there if interrupted. Using that logic, which seems highly...er... logical, the noise of the horse and cart would have allowed him to escape quickly. A closed gate would have been problematic for him. Going further up the passage would have provided some protection from anyone peering into the passage, but would not have afforded him an escape opportunity. Without waxing too Mind Hunter, one can almost picture this; a man so afraid to be trapped and unable to do his "work" again. Tabram and MacKenzie were also murdered with clear escape routes in mind, though their inclusion as JTR victims is debatable.

So, where do we stand with Kelly? A closed door, in all probability. Either he felt no fear of entrapment here, or it was someone else.

This is of course if Tom's theory is logical.

Cheers,

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Mike,

If Jack decided that he wanted to kill indoors in order to have more time to mutilate, he had to accept the trade off a closed door. I am not sure that it was that great of a risk. If anybody knocked on the door and there was no answer, most likely they would simply walk away. Who was going to force the door? And even in the unlikely event that they did, Jack would have heard them. He could have burst out knife in hand and run. It seems like a calculated risk.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

CD,

That's logical. It's just a pretty big jump if he was so concerned about escaping. Maybe he planned an indoor one for whenever opportunity knocked. I feel that he was frustrated in all the other murders because he didn't find what he was looking for in the form of proper mutilation or satiation. It's possible then that he knew he needed more light and time. Who knows? It does seem more likely that JTR did it due to the extreme violence that was perpetrated. Not so likely for a one-off, in my opinion. To keep it on track, a frustrated event such as Stride's murder, may have strengthened his resolve in that direction.

Cheers,

Mike

[tji]

Hi Mike

I feel I have to put my two penneth in!!

Mainly back on the old boards I had 'discussions' with Tom on our differences with Kidney and I have to say that not once did I feel that he was rude or disrespectful of me and my opinions and although he never changed my mind he always gave me reasons to why he thought I was wrong - and listened to the reasons I gave as to why I was not. Although he had probably heard the arguments lots of times before.

To me that is what these boards are about - the 'old timers' on here offering advice to the newbies who are just finding out that there may be differences to what they originally believed to be true about Jtr. Not forcing there own beliefs down people's throats.

Tj

[DVV]

"The Enduring Profile"-Brand New Terror Movie-Suspense Story-Most Chilling

I may be on from time to time, I may not, I may have my profile deleted as per my request...
Regards

For those who have a strong stomach.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for that Teej, Corey, and DVV,

I really don't like being mean or 'insulting', but this is about the 8th time Michael has quit the boards. He has no friends here, and that is his own doing, as I've tried to befriend him numerous times, but he will have none of it. I didn't become belligerent this time around until he started insulting Ripperology and the Casebook as a whole, which I felt was crossing the line. I've had enough and I wanted him to know that, for what it's worth. No more stepping around him. There's not a single Stride-related thread in recent memory that he hasn't completely disrupted and taken over. Newcomers think he knows what he's talking about and accept his endless mistakes as facts, which is unfortunate, because so much of what is written about this murder is myth already. Virtually all of the reasons people think Stride was not a Ripper victim are myths, from Michael Kidney's abusiveness, to his locking her in the room, to Schwartz, to the 'different' knife. To keep adding more myth and mistakes to the saga doesn't make sense to me. Michael should go produce an essay or monograph on his various theories and then there might be something to discuss. But his 'me against the world' attitude on here is played out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

This is of course if Tom's theory is logical.

If you mean my theory that the Ripper didn't want to get caught, I don't think that's so much theory as it is common sense, and I would hope it's logical.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hi Mike,

If Jack decided that he wanted to kill indoors in order to have more time to mutilate, he had to accept the trade off a closed door. I am not sure that it was that great of a risk. If anybody knocked on the door and there was no answer, most likely they would simply walk away. Who was going to force the door? And even in the unlikely event that they did, Jack would have heard them. He could have burst out knife in hand and run. It seems like a calculated risk.

c.d.

Hello c.d.,

Here I disagree...on the basis of one thing only.

If anyone knocked at the door at that time of night, that person would almost certainly be known to MJK. It isn't illogocal thinking that the knowledge about the broken window was limited... IF there was a blazing fire going in that room... it would light up through the curtains and shine through into the court...
Well, knowing Mary, have a peak through the curtains into this firelit room.
People who knock on single women's doors, with a reputation as a prostitute, at Lord knows what time in the night, would very possibly call out her name too, especially if they are known to them. There is no etiquette in Whitechapel after hours after the pub shuts...

And one more tiny, insignificant jot of a detail....

Its dark outside. In the court, in the alleyway. Pitch black. That fire blazing away would light up the back courtyard. Just like a low bulb today. And guess what else would be perfectly visible looking through the curtains from the outside? MOVEMENT. Anyone's silhoutte that moved would be seen.

Now that's perfectly logical to me. But then again, where's the logic in JTR?. It has more holes in it than a watering can spout.

best wishes c.d., as always,

Phil