How about this quick theory!

[Trevor Marriott]

Trev,

I hear that they are making a re make of The Boston Strangler are you involved in re creating the murders with all your expertise on strangling

Ah, so we can add surly sarcasm to your array of "talents." As it is, my money is on Tom.

Don.

Have you been and had your sense of humor removed because you and others are taking all of this mystery far to seriously almost to the point of obsession.

I am sure Tom took it all in the spirit of things.

Lighten up chill out the mystery will never be solved.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I don't think Polly or Annie had any money on them when they were killed.

We don't know : there was an unaccounted for 'time lapse' between Annie leaving her Lodging House and being murdered -a smaller one, if you think that she was actually killed earlier than the Witness Statement's suggest, but still a gap: I think that she surely spent it soliciting ! At any rate, she was robbed of her rings. Polly was soliciting from pub to pub the night she died -how can we know if she had other clients ?

Polly had spent hers and was probably too drunk to earn more.

Do you think that the clients that she found in pubs weren't drunk themselves ? Or would turn down a very low priced desperate woman ?
Recent photos in the paper of a very drunk Charlotte Church, with her knickers around her ankles, against a car (oblivious to photographers)
should show you that as long as they can still (just) stand up -women can still 'engage in sexual activity'.

If Polly had already spent money in the pub, she had a motivation to earn more.

Eddowes had got money from somewhere to allow her to get drunk, but I reckon she was skint when she died.

She had worked hopping, she was pawning stuff, she probably bummed drinks -and she was soliciting : she probably had some coins on her. I think that she wanted both to get drunk in company, and not go back to her bloke empty handed.

MJK should have had money assuming accounts of her movements before her death are accurate - but I have seen no mention of it.

There was "no mention of it" because it had gone ! We know that she was soliciting the night that she died, and at least one client was Blotchy.

I'm wondering just why you think that a man capable of murder (and all these women were murdered ), wouldn't take the money off the corpse as well ??
(it was there for the asking).

It does point to a poor killer, though..

The moment when money should have changed hands, COULD have been th distraction that allowed "Jack" to strike. A sort of feint, with the woman watching his hand, while he actually grabbed them with the other.

Oh, come on ! I'm not a prostitute, but if I was ever to consider the 'oldest profession', then I would get the money whilst the customer was thinking with his 'trouser brain' and not try and negociate after 'the act' or when I was in a very vulnerable position !

I doubt any money ever actually changed hands between the killer and his victims

.

There seems to be some very sweet men on Casebook -and I think that you are one of them, Phil.

[Rubyretro]

I'm inclined to agree that, given the recent publiicity received by the Berner Street club, for their anti-Jewish rallies, it's compelling to suppose that their yard was selected as a murder site for some specific reason.

Very good ! (I hadn't thought of that either).

I did think that the club probably publicised their activities with posters or
flyers left at Jewish businesses or near synagogues or at buildings like the one one in Goulston Street, inhabited by Jews...even in the papers. It could not have been a difficult thing to find out the dates of 'meetings' -that's if the club wanted to be successful.

If this is the case, then the graffiti was written to that end as well.

It is an assumption that the killer wrote the graffiti -even if he was targetting Jews (I think that he might just have targetted the building -which would have fullfilled his aim, if it was to draw suspicion upon Jewish suspects).

How could he have written that rather long sentance, small as it was, in the pitch black of the doorway, at night ? He would have to have used a light, and that would have emitted a glow, which might have attracted attention.
I would think that he was in a hurry to distance himself from the apron bit , and just lobbed it through the doorway as quickly and discreetly as possible.

He might have written the graffito earlier. He might have known it was there. We don't even know what it means -and it might have been PRO-Jewish (as some people have pointed out).

However, it's enough that the apron piece was found in the building -mainly inhabited by Jews -for a connection to be made with the clubs.

The question is, for what reason were they chosen? That's one question I've yet to answer to my own satisfaction.

There's only one choice, Tom : either he was a Jew, or he wanted to cast blame on a 'Jewish Suspect'. I've made my choice.

[Phil H]

I don't think Polly or Annie had any money on them when they were killed. Polly had spent hers and was probably too drunk to earn more. Chapman was so ill, and had been turned out of the lodging house because she did not have the price of a bed. Don't think she'd earned it again either.

Eddowes had got money from somewhere to allow her to get drunk, but I reckon she was skint when she died.

MJK should have had money assuming accounts of her movements before her death are accurate - but I have seen no mention of it.

The moment when money should have changed hands, COULD have been th distraction that allowed "Jack" to strike. A sort of feint, with the woman watching his hand, while he actually grabbed them with the other. I doubt any money ever actually changed hands between the killer and his victims.

On the other hand, I seem to recall a thread here on Casebook with a suggestion that robbery was part of "Jack's" MO and that Chapman for instance, had to put all her belongings on the ground before she was killed. It didn't convince me, but it might others.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

Hi there, Greg !

Although I agree with Tom here, I wonder why Liz had no money if she had serviced 3 or 4 blokes that evening. Perhaps the killer robbed her?

Could well be, because we could say the same of MJK. Chapman had her rings stolen. Polly probably had other customers before JTR, on the night she was killed. I should think that the prostitutes asked for the money first, before going somewhere with a client (they'd have been mad not to), so he at least always took his own money back....and I would imagine, any extra that he found with it. I would suppose that he saw where a prostitute stashed her money, when he paid her. Getting robbed by clients was probably an occupational hazard for prostitutes.

On another note as to BS man being the killer. I think it possible that Jack was a ‘peeping Tom’ who perhaps got worked up watching the prostitutes servicing someone and then moved in swiftly afterwards for the kill. If this was the case, I could see him spying from the back of Dutfield’s yard in Ted Bundy like preparation.

I have wondered myself, if he was already in the yard. I don't suppose that he could have hoped to 'peep' much though....I think there is a statement somewhere where someone coming out of the club for air, into the yard, had to feel his way along the walls -it was that dark (so great for taking clients, or for murder, but rubbish for mutilation).

If we assume none of the special witnesses saw the murderer then we could have him sneaking in after the actors left the stage in just about every instance, including Tabram. I know this sounds like pulp fiction but it could explain his cat-like ability to escape detection.

I love the way you put it ! Yes, I think that is very likely indeed.

Greg[/QUOTE]

[lynn cates]

Phillips

Hello All. This would be much easier if one did a real life re-enactment.

I have done the Blackwell and it's posted. Now, we need someone to do the Phillips' version.

I look forward to it.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Where are the coins?

If you read a study of a modern woman, known to be a prositute, who left her boyfriend, had no regular means of employment, and was seen getting into a different car every 45 minutes, would you conclude that she was soliciting or 'on a date'? Because Stride, virtually every 45 minutes, is seen with different men, as attestable to the vast differences in their hat wear, or in some cases, their age. The hat to the Victorian man was as much a status symbol as a car is to us, and would be a feature that a man of that time would be less likely to get wrong than, say, age or height.

Although I agree with Tom here, I wonder why Liz had no money if she had serviced 3 or 4 blokes that evening. Perhaps the killer robbed her?

On another note as to BS man being the killer. I think it possible that Jack was a ‘peeping Tom’ who perhaps got worked up watching the prostitutes servicing someone and then moved in swiftly afterwards for the kill. If this was the case, I could see him spying from the back of Dutfield’s yard in Ted Bundy like preparation. If we assume none of the special witnesses saw the murderer then we could have him sneaking in after the actors left the stage in just about every instance, including Tabram. I know this sounds like pulp fiction but it could explain his cat-like ability to escape detection.


Greg

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Malcolm,

You keep telling me 'what I will find', as though you've looked and I haven't. You seem to like your idea of what happened, however clumsy it might be. I like my idea of what happened, because it takes all things into consideration and fits all the known facts, whereas yours does not. And incidentally, the blood almost certainly got on her wrist in oblong clots by Edward Johnson when he felt her wrist for a pulse, accidentally transfering blood from her throat.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

grabbing Liz by the scalf was discussed years ago on this forum, dont forget that the knot is pulled tightly and off to one side, most of us agreed back then that this was a strong possibility.

[Malcolm X]

No offense, Garry, but your lack of experience in the manual strangulation of women shows in this post (wink). You are suggesting that because no evidence of strangulation was found on Stride, then that is proof that she was not strangled, but this is not so. Stride was subdued one way or the other and was in fact unconscious when she was laid to the ground. And she WAS laid to the ground in the same manner as the earlier victims (and Eddowes). If you strangle a woman to unconscioiusness while standing, as you lower her body you will be bending your knees, so you will lower into a kneeling position with your knees at her back, still holding on to her. She will will therefore fall to her left side. Any argument that Stride was 'done in' differently to the other girls is a matter of invention or, at best, unsupported speculation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

i think you'll find that Stride was grabbed by her scalf, pulled down to one side and had her throat cut so the blood spurt wouldn't soak him, she then dropped to the floor, her hand was covered in blood, she therefore tried to cover over the wound.

it doesn't seem like she was strangled first, he manhandled her, cut her throat quickly and watched her die, he then left quickly.

he may simply have killed her because she was waiting at a Jewish working mans club.

mutilation was not intended, thus this murder looks like another person, but two murders on one night, plus the graffito makes this first murder look suspiciously like a twin, crafted on purpose !

he's upping his game and starting to blame the Jews, he's probably hoping to cause rioting on the streets, whatever the case, it's definitely anti-semetic hatred and i think that Dutfields is the catalyst.

poor area, no jobs, no future, nothing but misery and poverty, he's blaming the immigrants and especially the Jews, and i hate to say this, but so is G Hutchinson too.

so there is a strong connection with him to all 3 murders, this plus other stuff too

[Phil H]

If you read a study of a modern woman, known to be a prositute, who left her boyfriend, had no regular means of employment, and was seen getting into a different car every 45 minutes, would you conclude that she was soliciting or 'on a date'? Because Stride, virtually every 45 minutes, is seen with different men, as attestable to the vast differences in their hat wear, or in some cases, their age. The hat to the Victorian man was as much a status symbol as a car is to us, and would be a feature that a man of that time would be less likely to get wrong than, say, age or height.

That's your interpretation, Tom. we don't know that!

In any case I could never make such an assumption about a member of the opposite sex.

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

The tightened scarf, wrong information, and 'was she soliciting'?

Hi Malcolm,

I don't at all believe Stride was grabbed by her scarf. That would not be necessary nor would it make good sense on the killer's part. Stride was on the ground unconscious with her neck lying over the jabbed stones of the makeshift gutter. He pulled up on the scarf in order to raise her neck so that he could get his knife blade under there. This is supported by all the physical evidence, such as that ALL the blood was in the gutter, telling us she was on her side when her neck was cut. Also, the scarf was pulled very tight at the moment her throat was cut, which is evidence by the cut itself, which nicked the scarf and travelled along the border created by it.

Garry,

In your case, I don't feel you are biased, because your theory as far as i can see it wouldn't be advanced by eliminating Stride. But I do think that, like many commentators, you long ago because influenced by the research which led you to believe Stride was not a Ripper victim, as presented by other authors, and their reasoning and facts were wrong.

Phil H,

If you read a study of a modern woman, known to be a prositute, who left her boyfriend, had no regular means of employment, and was seen getting into a different car every 45 minutes, would you conclude that she was soliciting or 'on a date'? Because Stride, virtually every 45 minutes, is seen with different men, as attestable to the vast differences in their hat wear, or in some cases, their age. The hat to the Victorian man was as much a status symbol as a car is to us, and would be a feature that a man of that time would be less likely to get wrong than, say, age or height.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

How can you possibly know that?



This begs the question - where is a good location to mutilate? Someone's backyard (Hanbury Street)? In the middle of a street (Buck's Row)?

because JTR wasn't seen in the yard he therefore left earlier on, this is fairly obvious..... BUT HOW MUCH EARLIER ON I DONT KNOW, was he disturbed by the cart? yes maybe, but whatever happened, LIZ was not killed for the purpose of mutilation, it's a classic cut-throat street murder.

the killer was annoyed with her, for some reason !

these other locations are crap for mutilation too, but are better than Dutfields, Dutfields is dodgy because in any second now, somebody could rush out that door from upstairs, either for a quick pee, to be sick, or simply shooting off home!..... it's a door leading up to a working man's club and it's a busy night, this is obvious, you shouldn't even be questioning this.

this is the worst place in the world to mutilate, it's like doing so outside a pub or a night club etc, a residential area, or even a normal street is far better, especially if it's poorly lit, dont forget that street lighting back then was dreadful, many of us are missing this important point.

it would be similar to today, but with a ``Power cut``, Whitechapel at night would therefore be near total darkness......you would hardly notice anything at night, only near a gas powered street lamp and these would be filthy dirty and low powered, so killing out on the streets is far safer than in Dutfields

[Garry Wroe]

Eddowes or Kelly showed no signs of strangulation. Doesn't mean they were not strangled though.

They did and almost certainly were, Garza.

Signs of strangulation are not always visible and even today sometimes detectives have to use radiography to detect it.

Determining the extent of violence on the body, Garza, is the domain of the pathologist, not detectives, and in an overwhelming majority of cases strangulation is immediately apparent courtesy of the presence of bruising to the neck tissues, swollen tongue, floridity in the hands and face, and the bursting of ocular blood vessels. It is only in the rarest of cases that manual strangulation leaves no obvious sign of physical trauma.

She could have be strangled while she was facing the wall, when she went unconcious, he could have laid her on her back perpendicular to the wall, but she would have more easily seen by a passer by.

There were no indications of manual strangulation.

If he wanted to hide her as best as he could, he could lay her perpendicular to the wall, which from a facing the wall position he would have to lay her on her side...then disturbance.

And this in a part of the yard that was so dark that Diemschutz was only able to determine that he was standing over a human body after he illuminated the area with a match?

The shallower and less vicious throat wound …

can be explained by her throat being cut on her side, the murderer would not be able to get the same kind of pressure if she was laying on her side.

There is no evidence whatever to substantiate the contention that Stride was lying on her side as her throat was cut. Indeed, Dr Blackwell thought it likely that the wound was inflicted whilst Stride was in an upright position and being dragged backwards.

This was not the first or last time JTR was disturbed with his kill btw, you should note that fact.

I’d be grateful if you could present the evidence which might substantiate this contention, Garza.

You are suggesting that because no evidence of strangulation was found on Stride, then that is proof that she was not strangled, but this is not so.

Not quite, Tom. I’m stating that Stride’s body evinced no signs of manual strangulation, which in itself is anomalous given Jack the Ripper’s normal mode of attack.

Stride was subdued one way or the other and was in fact unconscious when she was laid to the ground. And she WAS laid to the ground in the same manner as the earlier victims (and Eddowes).

Not according to Dr Blackwell.

If you strangle a woman to unconscioiusness while standing, as you lower her body you will be bending your knees, so you will lower into a kneeling position with your knees at her back, still holding on to her. She will will therefore fall to her left side.

With respect, Tom, I’m struggling to understand your logic on this one. Be that as it may, we know that Jack the Ripper had honed a lethally efficient method for the subduing and killing of victims. He seized them by the throat, throttled them into unconsciousness, laid them in a supine position and then killed them by inflicting one or more vicious cuts to the throat. Thus, whilst your explanation may well be feasible in a technical sense, it doesn’t explain why the killer would have deviated from a tried and trusted method of attack – a modus operandi that was clearly in evidence less than an hour later in Mitre Square.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that deviations from the established mode of attack cannot be explained, and nor am I stating that such departures are a definitive indication that Stride was a non-Ripper victim. What I am saying, however, is that there are sufficient circumstances attached to the Stride case to introduce more than an element of doubt.

Any argument that Stride was 'done in' differently to the other girls is a matter of invention or, at best, unsupported speculation.

Then I would encourage you to reassess my arguments, Tom, which I maintain are impartial and evidentially based.

[lynn cates]

coppers

Hello Phil. I was referring to what the coppers meant by her "get up." What, specifically, was she wearing that made her seem to be soliciting?

Cheers.
LC