Did jack kill liz stride?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

With respect to the discussion of witnesses, there are indeed numerous conflicting and confusing statements made by some witnesses, and what would appear on the surface to be the most important witness is neither at the Inquest into her death officially, nor is he or his story even acknowledged.

I just pointed out how according to the statements given, Eagle and Lave were both at or near the gates at 12:40 with a view of the street and neither man saw each other let alone a woman alone on the street. Spooner states that he believed he was at the dead womans side at around 12:40...and that conflicts with all the other statements....except some members who were in the house at the time they were alerted. In fact 3 or more witnesses gave times that directly dispute those given by Eagle, Lave, Diemshitz and of course Israel.

Its not rocket science...the men whose statements cause the greatest concern are ALL club members, excluding Israel, who has not been directly linked with the club. Yet.

There are only a few witnesses that had no reason to stretch the truth, conceal some delays, cover their reputation...club members. Fanny had no reason to make up anything....and she saw and heard none of what those members claim happened, despite belong at her door off and on from 12:30 until 12:50, at which time she was at her door continuously... and didn't see Louis arrive.

What the witness says has to be weighed by their need to say it in a particular, self protecting manner.

Cheers

[Jon Guy]

Hi Mike

With respect to the discussion of witnesses, there are indeed numerous conflicting and confusing statements made by some witnesses, and what would appear on the surface to be the most important witness is neither at the Inquest into her death officially, nor is he or his story even acknowledged.

I just pointed out how according to the statements given, Eagle and Lave were both at or near the gates at 12:40 with a view of the street and neither man saw each other let alone a woman alone on the street. Spooner states that he believed he was at the dead womans side at around 12:40...and that conflicts with all the other statements....except some members who were in the house at the time they were alerted. In fact 3 or more witnesses gave times that directly dispute those given by Eagle, Lave, Diemshitz and of course Israel.

Its not rocket science...the men whose statements cause the greatest concern are ALL club members, excluding Israel, who has not been directly linked with the club. Yet.

There are only a few witnesses that had no reason to stretch the truth, conceal some delays, cover their reputation...club members. Fanny had no reason to make up anything....and she saw and heard none of what those members claim happened, despite belong at her door off and on from 12:30 until 12:50, at which time she was at her door continuously... and didn't see Louis arrive.

What the witness says has to be weighed by their need to say it in a particular, self protecting manner.

Cheers

None of the Stride witness statements conflict.
Lynn, also recently claimed that some witness statments conflict, although he never gave examples.
The one`s you have listed as examples are not correct, as Eagle said he returned about twenty to one. Nothing precise.
Same with Lave, nothing precise.
Mortimer was at her door till 1am, when Diemschutz was just turning into Berner St, so chances are she wouldn`ty have seen him
We know Spooner was out with his guess of the time. He was going by the closing time of the pub :-)
.. and Schwartz gave a statement to the police, which Swanson confirmed as one that was believed by the Police. Not sure what you mean by acknowleged ?
I`ll agree with the statement that Schwartz has no links to the club.

[The Good Michael]

Jon,

Do you mean that all the witnesses didn't have synchronized watches? That the time could go a little in either direction because they guessed? That even tower clocks could be a little off? You mean witnesses cannot always give the exact same details of time, physical appearance, and cannot always remember other people in the streets? Shame on them. This could never happen today with cellphones and cameras.

Mike

[Nick Spring]

Jon,

Do you mean that all the witnesses didn't have synchronized watches? That the time could go a little in either direction because they guessed? That even tower clocks could be a little off? You mean witnesses cannot always give the exact same details of time, physical appearance, and cannot always remember other people in the streets? Shame on them. This could never happen today with cellphones and cameras.

Mike

Oh to go back to 1888 with a digital camera.

Best

Nick

[Jon Guy]

Do you mean that all the witnesses didn't have synchronized watches? That the time could go a little in either direction because they guessed? That even tower clocks could be a little off? You mean witnesses cannot always give the exact same details of time, physical appearance, and cannot always remember other people in the streets? Shame on them. This could never happen today with cellphones and cameras.

That`s the impression I get, Mike
You`d think that with the worlds most infamous series of murders unfolding before them that people would have paid much more attention to details.

[moonbegger]

How do you know that the killer intended to take Polly Nichol's uterus?

Hello Observer , the very fact that just a week later Annie had her uterus taken , then three weeks after that Kate also had her uterus taken . The killer had gone through the first two stages of his MO ( Kill & open victim up ) and for my mind the inevitable removal of uterus , and facial mutilations did not happen purely because the killer saw Cross heading up the Row .. An assumption that was also made by Coroner Wynne Baxter on the final day of the Nichols inquest .. and a week before Kate had her uterus removed ..

I suggest to you as a possibility that these two women may have been murdered by the same man with the same object, and that in the case of Nicholls the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and having failed in the open street he tries again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place.

cheers

moonbegger

[Hunter]

Wynne Baxter had his own theory to promote, which didn't apparently include Kate Eddowes.

[Wickerman]

You`d think that with the worlds most infamous series of murders unfolding before them that people would have paid much more attention to details.

I'm sure they would have, if they knew what was about to happen

[Observer]

Hello Observer , the very fact that just a week later Annie had her uterus taken , then three weeks after that Kate also had her uterus taken . The killer had gone through the first two stages of his MO ( Kill & open victim up ) and for my mind the inevitable removal of uterus , and facial mutilations did not happen purely because the killer saw Cross heading up the Row .. An assumption that was also made by Coroner Wynne Baxter on the final day of the Nichols inquest .. and a week before Kate had her uterus removed ..



cheers

moonbegger

Oh but it were that easy Moonbegger. Let's face it, we don't know whether Cross disturbed the killer. And even if Annie Chapman, and Kate Eddowes, had their uteri removed it does not follow that the killer necessarily intended removing Polly Nichols uterus. What of Mary Kelly, her uterus was not removed?

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon.

Yes that's right but strangely none on Eddowes.

Of course he could have used other methods to overcome these poor women depending on the circumstances. It doesn't necessarily mean just grab throat and strangle.

The killer was obviously strong and they were despatched quickly without noise.

cheers

Nick

I'm not sure those bruises on her front, around the collarbone, are to be associated with the murder. The doctors assumed Stride was held down, and these bruises are interpreted as an indication of such.
Yet, if Stride had been held down, why was there no mud on her back?

I tend to think these bruises are more likely associated with their calling, than their killing
Rear penetration was said to be a common means of relieving a client. In a scenario like this, with the client coupling with her from behind, the man grasps her shoulders for leverage, if you see what I mean. I suspect those bruises were made by the pressure of a clients fingertips.

Perhaps they were the 'mark' of a prostitute?

[moonbegger]

Here's the thing Observer . If my house was broken into on three occasions and on two of the robbery's the three padlocks that secure my gun cupboard were smashed off before my guns were stolen , but on the third occasion only two padlocks were smashed off , and my guns were safe .. it wouldn't take me too long to figure out those pesky robbers were disturbed ..

Leaping back to 1888 .. and PC Neil ..

I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.

How many minutes would it take after the cutting of the throat for the blood to stop oozing out ?

Paul may have even felt the freshly killed Polly still twitching ..

The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.

I think even with all the timelines rounded up and Llewellyn estimating ..

I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour.

It is a safe bet that Cross interrupted the killer from completing his regular MO ..

As for Kelly !!! I don't have the foggiest .. but I am working on it

cheers , moonbegger

PS I don't really have a gun cupboard or whatever its called .

[Nick Spring]

I'm not sure those bruises on her front, around the collarbone, are to be associated with the murder. The doctors assumed Stride was held down, and these bruises are interpreted as an indication of such.
Yet, if Stride had been held down, why was there no mud on her back?

I tend to think these bruises are more likely associated with their calling, than their killing
Rear penetration was said to be a common means of relieving a client. In a scenario like this, with the client coupling with her from behind, the man grasps her shoulders for leverage, if you see what I mean. I suspect those bruises were made by the pressure of a clients fingertips.

Perhaps they were the 'mark' of a prostitute?

Hi,

Thanks that is an excellent point and you may well be right.

Nick

[Tom_Wescott]

The bruises were perimortem, so they were inflicted within minutes prior, during, or just after death. Schwartz told the Star that BS Man grabbed Stride "by the shoulders" and threw her down. This would have been on the pavement were there wasn't any mud.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

The bruises were perimortem, so they were inflicted within minutes prior, during, or just after death.

The fact the bruises/discoloration on Stride's shoulders were initially faint, but became more evident as the hours passed suggest they were recent.

Schwartz told the Star that BS Man grabbed Stride "by the shoulders" and threw her down. This would have been on the pavement were there wasn't any mud.

This is what he told the Star:
"...The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage,.."

No mention of throwing her down by the shoulders.

However, he told the police this:
"The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round & threw her down on the footway.."

No mention of grabbing her by the shoulders.

So, did he push her by the shoulder back into the yard?
Or, did he just throw her down on the footway?

Nowhere do we read that he grabbed her "by the shoulders"

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Tom

Great to see you posting again...

Schwartz told the Star that BS Man grabbed Stride "by the shoulders" and threw her down. This would have been on the pavement were there wasn't any mud.

It wasn't a "pavement" though was it? Per Swanson it was a "footway"...leaving us uncertain whether he meant the pavement or whatever. I hear what Stewart has said on this subject on another thread, and respect his expertise. However, if Swanson had meant "pavement" he'd surely have said "pavement"...Instead he said "footway" which suggests to me at least, the possibility of a path to somewhere other than "down the road"...possibly a gutter (which might've been seen as a paved path) down towards the side door of the club...

The Star account in fact implied that she was thrown back into the yard...so since we're acknowledging the Star, where exactly was this paved or semi-paved area?

There is a suggestion that the area each side of the entrance was paved regularly with large stones and that the centre was paved somewhat more randomly with smaller stones...this being the case could the mud have originated between the smaller stones? The evidence surely suggests, she was laying half across the larger, half across the smaller stones?

All the best

Dave