Did jack kill liz stride?

[Hunter]

Hi Cel,

I sure am glad to see Archaic back here and I know you are as well.

Like you, I never voted either way on this thread though I participated in the discussion throughout this marathon... and my reason was because there is no certainty about who killed Liz.

The evidence is this-

She was a known prostitute.
Her attacker took her by surprise; from behind.
Her throat was cut ( not stabbed) from left to right.
Another woman, of the same class, was killed within an hour, in the same area; which is not just a coincidence, but one hell of a coincidence.
Investigations of club members and acquaintances turned up no suspects.
And she was not mutilated.

The last statement is why ( as for many people) I am not certain that the unknown person called Jack the Ripper was her killer... but given the evidence as a whole, and considering the pattern it suggest, I would deem him a likely candidate.

As far as the perceived danger that Dutfields Yard may have posed; we would first be assuming that JTR was a rational man. I personally don't think he was. He was an opportunist, who sought the easiest prey he could find. He struck when the moment felt right but didn't think beyond that. The results of the other murders- probably interrupted wth Nichols... desperate to complete his quest he kills again soon ( in little more than a week) in a precarious place on Hanbury St when people were getting up to go to the privy. Stride is killed and something goes wrong again. Eddowes is killed within an hour in a public square. The apron was probably taken because he had to leave in haste and had faecal matter on his hands. Six weeks pass and Bingo, he finds, by hook or crook, someone with her own room... still a dangerous place, but he finally has more time.

I'm being a bit redundant here, but this guy was lucky. If the killing spree had continued with any regularity, he would likely have been caught.

I realize there are people with more intricate and complicated theories about this short series of murders, but it could also be as simple as that.

[Jeff Leahy]

Broadly I'm in total agreement. If Harvey walked into Mitre Square as he claimed he must have missed Jack at work or at least just before he started work.

An opportunists guided by God, a very lucky one at that.

Many thanks

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom
It is obvious that you are obsessed in the belief that JTR killed Stride. This obsession is clouding your judgement and your ability to assess and evaluate the true facts.

As a published and outspoken author on the case, I believe that other posters would be more interested in your assessment of the evidence and how you've reached your conclusions than in your personal assessment of my motives and thought processes.

Broadly as I said I agree with what Tom is saying about the knife.

There is nothing to agree or disagree with. It is an absolute medical fact that Liz Stride was cut once with the knife along her throat. It was a cut, not a stab. There is absolutely no medical evidence with which we or the doctors at the time could gage the length of the knife blade. All we know medically is that it was sharp. Any other conclusions must be drawn from other evidence. The most immediate evidence is the scarf because we know that the killer was holding it tight as he drew the knife across her throat. There can only be one practical reason for the killer bothering to do so and that is to lift her throat from the ground to allow access with his knife. Because her neck was over a jagged stone, neither a short blade nor long would have easy access, so doing this was necessary. This would have compromised the killer's balance, perhaps explaining why the cut was not as deep as with other victims. While none of this proves the blade was long, it does remove any and all argument that the blade must have been short and thus different from the knife used on Eddowes.

However Blackwell does suggest that he believed Liz struggled and mentions blood on the back of her right hand.

You mean Phillips? There were oblong blood clots on her wrist and the back of her hand, precisely where Edward Johnston felt for a pulse after loosening Stride's bloody collar and feeling her bloody neck for a pulse in the dark. Edward Spooner, who examined Liz first and had a good view of both hands, did not see the blood, neither did Johnston, but everyone who examined Stride afterwards did. The most likely and rational conclusion therefore is that Johnston inadvertently transferred blood from Stride's neck onto her wrist.

Her attacker took her by surprise; from behind.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

As a published and outspoken author on the case, I believe that other posters would be more interested in your assessment of the evidence and how you've reached your conclusions than in your personal assessment of my motives and thought processes.

Tom Wescott

I continually assess and evaluate the evidence on here and have already made by feelings known in relation to the Strde murder.So i am not prepared to keep repeating myself. You have your own thoughts and beliefs so whatever I or anyone else says isnt going to change your mind.

I have also introduced new evidence in the Ripper case. I am quite happy to discuss various issues raiseds by posters on here from a professional standpoint. After all i have had over 30 years conducting criminal investigations, so i think that gives me an edge on how to assess and evaluate evidence. I am happy to continue to help and assist anyone on here who wishes to contact me and discuss any matter connected to the case.

However what does irritate me is that a handful of regular posters and they know who they are are so set in their perceptions of the overall Ripper case that whenever anyhting new appears here, or someone offers a new view point because of their false percpetions they are not prepared to discuss the issues, and try to impose their mis conceptions on other genuine posters.

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

[Tom_Wescott]

You have your own thoughts and beliefs so whatever I or anyone else says isnt going to change your mind.

Okay, so even if you're not willing to discuss your conclusions and how you've reached them, I still doubt anyone is interested in your opinions about my motives and thought processes.

I have also introduced new evidence in the Ripper case.

So have I, but I haven't stopped.

However what does irritate me is that a handful of regular posters and they know who they are are so set in their perceptions of the overall Ripper case that whenever anyhting new appears here, or someone offers a new view point because of their false percpetions they are not prepared to discuss the issues, and try to impose their mis conceptions on other genuine posters.

I share your frustration. The irony is that I perceive you this way, and you seem to perceive me this way. Perhaps we're both wrong in this regard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

You mean Phillips? There were oblong blood clots on her wrist and the back of her hand, precisely where Edward Johnston felt for a pulse after loosening Stride's bloody collar and feeling her bloody neck for a pulse in the dark. Edward Spooner, who examined Liz first and had a good view of both hands, did not see the blood, neither did Johnston, but everyone who examined Stride afterwards did. The most likely and rational conclusion therefore is that Johnston inadvertently transferred blood from Stride's neck onto her wrist.

Blackwell: "At about ten minutes past one I was called to 40, Berner-street by a policeman, where I found a woman who had been murdered. Her head had been almost severed from her body. She could not have been dead more than twenty minutes, the body being perfectly warm. The woman did not appear to be a Jewess, but more like an Irishwoman. I roughly examined her, and found no other injuries, but this I cannot definitely state until I have made a further investigation of the body. She had on a black velvet jacket and black dress of different material. In her hand she held a box of cachous, whilst pinned in her dress was a flower. I should say that as the woman had held sweets in her left hand that her head was dragged back by means of a silk handkerchief she wore round her neck, and her throat was then cut. One of her hands, too, was smeared with blood, so she may have used this in her rapid struggle. I have no doubt that, the woman's windpipe being completely cut through, she was unable to make any sound. I might say it does not follow that the murderer would be bespattered with blood, for as he is sufficiently cunning in other things he could contrive to avoid coming in contact with the blood by reaching well forward."

No I did mean Dr Blackwell. And while I'm in total agreement with your conclusions, please appreciate not everyone is? And I have a remit to balance believe it or not?

Pirate

PS I'm not disputing what you say about Johnston, just quoting Dr Blackwell

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pirate,

I think people should remember that doctors are doctors, not investigators, and comments they made immediately after a crime are conjecture and nothing more. Also, in Blackwell's case, he could not very well acknowledge the fact that his own assistant acted in a way that was absolutely forbidden, as he was not a licensed medical man and should not have taken any action prior to the arrival of Dr. Blackwell. The exchange between Phillips and Blackwell at the inquest regarding the cachous might prove enlightening in this regard.

The blood spots were by no means sign of a struggle, since neither the killer nor his knife would have been bloody, and we know that Stride was already on the ground BEFORE any blood was spilt, so how could there have been a struggle? If someone does not see the simple logic in what I'm saying, it is not myself they are in disagreement with, but basic common sense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

I see/hear what your saying Tom. But what constitutes a struggle?

Perhaps Liz simply raised her hand to her throat as she was pulled back?

We can not say for certain that Johnston was responsible and others will argue against that.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Perhaps Liz simply raised her hand to her throat as she was pulled back?

And yet no blood smears on her hand? Her palm clean? No blood transferred to her blouse from her hand? I think not.

We can not say for certain that Johnston was responsible and others will argue against that.

People argue that the moon was made out of cheese, but it's your choice to listen to them or not. While we can say very little for certain, as you say, we can draw reasonable and strong inferences from the data available. The blood smears are a simple matter to figure out and it's a shame the doctors either didn't see it or (more likely) could not speak out on the matter without implicating poor Johnston and his superiors. Again I'll point out that Edwards Spooner saw no blood stains. The first person to see them was Blackwell who happened to be the first person to examine Stride following Johnston. By not being more careful in this manner, by undoing her clothes, and by moving the body, Edward Johnston significantly compromised the crime scene.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

People argue that the moon was made out of cheese, but it's your choice to listen to them or not. While we can say very little for certain, as you say, we can draw reasonable and strong inferences from the data available. The blood smears are a simple matter to figure out and it's a shame the doctors either didn't see it or (more likely) could not speak out on the matter without implicating poor Johnston and his superiors. Again I'll point out that Edwards Spooner saw no blood stains. The first person to see them was Blackwell who happened to be the first person to examine Stride following Johnston. By not being more careful in this manner, by undoing her clothes, and by moving the body, Edward Johnston significantly compromised the crime scene. Yours truly, Tom Wescott

Yes exactly, Strange that we have reached the exact same conclusion. Who would have thought it?

I'm fairly certain that others will not

Pirate

PS I'm still burning NTSC"S! only another 49 minutes to go

[Tom_Wescott]

Yee of little faith. I think most rational and serious researchers, such as your friend and neighbor, already agree with me on most of my observations. Others like to disagree simply for the sake of disagreement. I'm glad you're not among those.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Celesta]

Hi Hunter,

Simple is often good. I'm certainly in agreement that there's a good chance her killer was JtR. I like to keep the possibilities open though. He may have misjudged the situation with the club and decided to move on to another victim. I couldn't agree more that he was a lucky guy to have avoided capture.

Best,

Cel

[Jeff Leahy]

Yee of little faith. I think most rational and serious researchers, such as your friend and neighbor, already agree with me on most of my observations. Others like to disagree simply for the sake of disagreement. I'm glad you're not among those.

Yours truly, Tom Wescott

Hum? Actually my landlord has some serious reservations. I still maintain that Liz was a Ripper victim.

I think that we must except that others will have those reservations.

Many thanks

Pirate

[Celesta]

However what does irritate me is that a handful of regular posters and they know who they are are so set in their perceptions of the overall Ripper case that whenever anyhting new appears here, or someone offers a new view point because of their false percpetions they are not prepared to discuss the issues, and try to impose their mis conceptions on other genuine posters.

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

It happens in other fields, too, Trevor. I think it's human nature. If a person has worked on something for a while, feels right about their conclusions, it's can be difficult to change course in mid-stream unless he or she receives information that absolutely refutes their conclusions or data. It's not necessarily that people are trying to be difficult, but that they don't see the need to change their interpretations based on what they believe they understand at any point in their research. This area of study is so open-ended and there may still be surprises out there waiting for researchers. When those surprises come along, we need to be open towards them and see how they work into the whole big picture of what happened in 1888. It's in everyone's best interest to listen to what others have to say here, as long as the person is reasonable, and it's most definitely in the best interests of doing good history that we do listen and take seriously new information and new ideas.

[DVV]

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