Did jack kill liz stride?

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"If Stride's killer killed in a burst of anger, it would seem that he went from zero right to sixty. No one at the club heard any argument and Liz showed no sign of being slapped about."

Yes. And I find that difficult to believe. What do you think?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Yes, and that (among other reasons) is why I don't believe that the BS man was Liz's killer. You seem to prefer the approach of casting aspersions on Schwartz but as I constantly point out Schwartz only saw a woman being pushed to the ground. So I don't understand why you fault him because his story doesn't seem to match your scenario for the killing.

c.d.

[Observer]

Hello Michael. Thanks.

And then we would have no ripper. And that would never do.

Cheers.
LC

We still have a Ripper without Liz Stride.

[Observer]

Considering the position of the body, I personally can not see how Liz Stride had to be walking out of the yard when she was attacked, and subsequently murdered. She could just as well have been walking into the yard.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Lynn,

Yes, and that (among other reasons) is why I don't believe that the BS man was Liz's killer. You seem to prefer the approach of casting aspersions on Schwartz but as I constantly point out Schwartz only saw a woman being pushed to the ground. So I don't understand why you fault him because his story doesn't seem to match your scenario for the killing.

c.d.

Hi cd,

First off, your argument about BSM doesn't really hold water logically. As we all know Blackwells cut time estimate allows for her to have been cut as early as 12:46, and most probably within the 10 minutes between that and 12:56...therefore, Israels alleged altercation takes place just as that 10 minute window commences. To suggest that BSM quickly leaves then this Ripper fellow enters is stretching what can be considered credible speculation. When you also consider that Fanny Mortimer was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am, you have the additional problem of where this Jack came from, because he didnt approach the gates from the street between 12:50 and 12:56....Fanny only saw Goldstein walking past them at around 12:55-:56. Those facts seem to indicate fairly clearly that IF Israels story is accurate then it is BSM who most probably kills Liz.

Problem with that is that there is no evidence that Israel Schwartzs story was provided to the coroner at the Inquest, and we know it wasnt presented openly at that same Inquest, so......we are left with only what was presented there, and that makes James Brown the believed witness who testifies about the immediate area of the club at 12:45am. And by his physical description...(no flower on her jacket), and the known young couple in the area, its probable that he never saw Liz.

Its possible that the Schwartz altercation never happened cd. Quite possible by the evidence. Which makes the last sighting of Liz Stride alive, PC Smiths at 12:35.

I know you fancy this a Ripper murder...no secret there....so it would behoove you to stick with those baseline facts, because its far more probable that Liz met her killer just after PC Smiths departure and we have no reason to believe within the accepted evidence that he entered the scene staggering drunk and made a public scene with his soon to be victim. You can imagine a more subtle and less controversial entrance for your Ripper. Less conspicuous...as any killer would be just prior to committing a sudden and unexpected assault.

The thread asks Did Jack kill Liz Stride....the man that killed and mutilated 2 women out in the open prior to her murder. I would think that for the murder to be associated with a serial mutilator you would need evidence of mutilation or attempted mutilation. Apparently many arent that fussy about following the actual evidence to its logical conclusion....which is that Liz Stride was killed by one cut....suddenly, in a second or two, and she was left to die untouched any further.

To call her murder a "ripping", compared with the earlier and later murders, is like building a house with toothpicks.....when confronted and tested, it cannot help but collapse in on itself. As does the speculation about a supposed interruption, a second attacker after BSM, and a witness story that isnt recorded or presented officially.

Cheers cd

[The Good Michael]

Considering the position of the body, I personally can not see how Liz Stride had to be walking out of the yard when she was attacked, and subsequently murdered. She could just as well have been walking into the yard.

Yep, and there's no way of knowing at present. This is a red herring...the body position. It tells us nothing except that a woman was lain there or fell there. Many scenarios available as to how the body lay where it did.

Mike

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I'm quite happy to discuss this with you but it really does get quite old when you get on your soap box and treat everybody who does not agree with you as though they were a complete idiot. Yes, I know you are the only person on here who restricts himself to the facts but I don't need to hear that in every one of your posts.

You touched on a lot of points but let me respond to a few:

You constantly cite times to make your argument yet you are completely oblivious to the fact that those times are ESTIMATES. If you want to narrow the time to make an argument, it is only fair that you also expand the time.

You constantly cite Mrs. Mortimer yet Stewart has pointed out that she did not give an official statement to the police and they apparently did not give much credence to her story.

You constantly cite the fact that Schwartz was not at the inquest and you cite that as evidence that the police did not believe his story. Sorry, but there is no basis for that conclusion. We simply don't know why he was not called.

You constantly cite the fact that no ripping took place and that there was no sign of interruption. You want Jack to have left some kind of note to that affect but it has been pointed out to you that an interruption could have occurred and left no evidence. Examples of serial killers who were scared off simply because of their own paranoia have been given. You simply ignore them.

Every one of your arguments can be refuted. That is why this issue is so controversial. I am sorry but it is not such an open and shut case that anyone should be wedded to any point of view.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

You constantly cite the fact that no ripping took place and that there was no sign of interruption. You want Jack to have left some kind of note to that affect but it has been pointed out to you that an interruption could have occurred and left no evidence.

In fact, an interruption at the very beginning of his act would leave the evidence of a hastily, but fatally cut throat and nothing more. Do we have that here? Bingo.

Mike

PS. It does get old, doesn't it...this exactitude of things that are inexact only to find a theory in the quagmire that one can call his... her own.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi cd,

In response;

Hello Michael,

I'm quite happy to discuss this with you but it really does get quite old when you get on your soap box and treat everybody who does not agree with you as though they were a complete idiot. Yes, I know you are the only person on here who restricts himself to the facts but I don't need to hear that in every one of your posts.

Im happy to discuss these issues as well cd, I just dont subscribe to the philosophy that I must accept all the statements made here, particularly ones that dont fit with the "accepted" evidence.

You touched on a lot of points but let me respond to a few:

You constantly cite times to make your argument yet you are completely oblivious to the fact that those times are ESTIMATES. If you want to narrow the time to make an argument, it is only fair that you also expand the time.

Those estimates were made by a trained physician who had the benefit of actually seeing the wound firsthand, and the trail of clotted blood within a half an hour of the cut. And the second medical opinion allowed for a cut before 12:45am. There is a Most Probable window established by Blackwell, between 12:46 and 12:56, its not unfair or speculative to use that opinion.

You constantly cite Mrs. Mortimer yet Stewart has pointed out that she did not give an official statement to the police and they apparently did not give much credence to her story.

Mrs Mortimers statement confirms a time and action provided by another witness, and her sighting confirms she was at her door at that time...12:55-:56. The fact that she didnt see anyone may be the factor that made them decide her statement wasnt crucial for the Inquest....but her story is corroborated to some extent by Goldsteins passby. Unlike Louis, Morris or Israel...who have zero corroboration for any part of their stories. We are supposed to take their word for it, I suppose.

You constantly cite the fact that Schwartz was not at the inquest and you cite that as evidence that the police did not believe his story. Sorry, but there is no basis for that conclusion. We simply don't know why he was not called.

The basis for that conclusion is quite clear cd....his story was not submitted to the coroner at the Inquest according to the records, he was not asked to appear at the Inquest, and his story was not offered in any shape or format to the jurors. If he was believed, he would have been the single most important witness at that proceeding, having claimed to see the murdered woman in a fracas with someone minutes before she was killed. Last person seen with the victim is THE most important sighting of any hearing on a murder case.

You constantly cite the fact that no ripping took place and that there was no sign of interruption. You want Jack to have left some kind of note to that affect but it has been pointed out to you that an interruption could have occurred and left no evidence. Examples of serial killers who were scared off simply because of their own paranoia have been given. You simply ignore them.

I suppose the killer could have flown into the passageway on homemade wings then flown out again, or he could have watched BSM leave then followed Liz into the passageway after 12:45, or he could have decided to just kill someone that night, no mutilations. But none of that is in any evidence either. Its all ungrounded speculation. And the reason I dont give credence with data from known serial killers histories is because I have no evidence that suggests to me that the man who killed Liz Stride was a serial killer. You merely presume that as well.

Every one of your arguments can be refuted. That is why this issue is so controversial. I am sorry but it is not such an open and shut case that anyone should be wedded to any point of view.


Go ahead...refute that Schwartz was not a part of the formal Inquest...refute that Fanny saw someone at the gates from her door at 12:55-:56,... refute that there is no evidence that Liz Strides murder was interrupted...refute that Liz Stride is cut once, unlike all the other so called Canonicals...refute that she was untouched after she was cut...... refute the fact that all the senior men at the club gave statements that have no corroboration from any other witness...Louis, Morris, Wess, ...refute that within 1 hour of the murder some members within the club at 12:30 recall being alerted to the body before 12:45...and one outside source, Spooner.....refute that the Ripper murders were categorized as such due to the abnormal inclusion of post mortem mutilations........I could go on,...the point being I am using the known and accepted evidence cd. You should try it out and see what then happens with your own theories.

c.d.

Ive never said that this murder should have been solved already, I have consistently said that it doesnt appear to have been linked with the other "Ripper" murders that Fall in other than the time of the year, the murder weapon, and the fact that Stride was once registered as a Prostitute...in Sweden, as a 16 year old girl.

Before you imagine a second attacker after BSM....or a Ripper that is interrupted without leaving any trace of that fact....review the evidence again. What you imagine might have occurred has to fit within the known evidence to have any validity.......and it doesnt.

People like assuming that the killer was enraged by a Stride interruption to explain Kates injuries...that he had more time to cut to explain Mary Kelly's....and that Liz Strides murder was merely a failed attempt at his usual madness....thats all well and good. People can believe what they like. But when it comes to proving those assumptions to people who are savvy to the details of the cases they better have some real and tangible evidence that supports their "assumption".

At this level of study I would like to think we should be past the guesswork and pure speculation in a search for answers, hence my distaste for those sorts of arguments.

Ive said this Ripper fellow rips...thats why the letter of the 27th nicknamed him as such....ergo, ...no ripping, no interruption....likely no Ripper.

Cheers cd

[lynn cates]

remember

Hello Jon.

"We have to account for the reason the killer was able to lay her down so placidly, and without a struggle, and without any sudden trauma to the head.
Although there was mud on her face, there was no bruise that I remember. So she was not thrown down, but laid down casually."

We do indeed. Hope we all remember that.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

bingo

Hello Velma.

"But then there are those *&*&* Cachous, which lead me to consider that her body reacted strongly (perhaps with fright) when her scarf was grabbed, which might also account for the quick lay-down and scamper off."

Bingo.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

forensic evidence

Hello CD. Thanks.

"You seem to prefer the approach of casting aspersions on Schwartz . . ."

No. My problem is that his testimony to the police is not congruent with the body's position.

". . . but as I constantly point out Schwartz only saw a woman being pushed to the ground."

Very well. But there were no tears and no mud where her fanny was.

"So I don't understand why you fault him because his story doesn't seem to match your scenario for the killing."

No, I don't fault him for THAT. I fault him because his story does not dovetail with the forensic evidence. Repair that and I'm good with Schwartz.

But IF BSM existed, he killed Liz.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom.

But bear in mind, you only need to be taller than your prospective victim., not necessarily tall in comparison with the general population.
Our common list of victims all ranged between 5ft and 5ft 5in - so a man 5ft 6-7in tall would fit your hypothesis, and that is not tall generally speaking.
Mary Kelly was about 5ft 7in but she may have been garotted on the bed.

I don't think that's what Harding was going for in describing someone who would garrot...he said a tall man, not a man only an inch or two taller than his victim. That would offer zero advantage.

Hi Curious aka Velma. That's for clearing that up for me. I thought Lynn had lost his mind there for a moment and was calling me Velma. No worries as I've been called much worse on here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

number four coming right up

Hello Michael.

"Many scenarios available as to how the body lay where it did."

Well three:

1. Mine

2. Tom's

3. Christer's

Please feel free to add but you MUST account for direction, lack of arterial spray on the wall, location of mud/dampness and ABOVE ALL, the cachous.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi, Wickerman,
Do you consider that it was likely Liz Stride's scarf that served as a garotte? I suspect she fainted of fright or something else occurred with her physically prior to her throat being cut.

curious

Hi Curious, although addressed to Wick, I thought I'd toss in my tuppence. The scarf would have made an almost impossible garrott. I too have considered Stride fainted, although that strikes me as too easy an explanation. Still very possible, though. The scarf was tightened at the moment her throat was cut, and her throat was cut only after she was lying prostrate and relaxed on the ground, so she was already unconscious, either from fainting, strangling, or possibly the use of pressure marks. Her neck laid over a large, jagged stone (one used to line the make-shift gutter). The killer grabbed the scarf, wrapped his hand in it, and used it both to raise her neck from the stone and to hold it for leverage as he cut her throat. The circumstances were not ideal for him, hence the more shallow cut than at other scenes, but it got the job done. The knife blade must have been relatively long to have necessitated the scarf, but the blood evidence, the nick on the scarf, and the tightened scarf make this the only explanation. The cachous were in her hand before she died.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Michael.

"Many scenarios available as to how the body lay where it did."

Well three:

1. Mine

2. Tom's

3. Christer's

Please feel free to add but you MUST account for direction, lack of arterial spray on the wall, location of mud/dampness and ABOVE ALL, the cachous.

Cheers.
LC

What's my explanation for why the body lay where it did? Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by that. All I know is that she was laid on the ground on that spot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott