The Schwartz/BS Man situation - My opinion only

[GBinOz]

Hello George,

I hear your point about Chapman/Eddowes but I the way I look at it is 2 middle aged women/ both killed outdoors/both killed within a mile of each other/ both killed during the short time period of ripper killings/ both had their throats cut/ both left on display legs apart/ both with abdominal mutilations/ both with intestines pulled out.

These are hardly everyday murders. The odds alone of there being 2 killers for these to women mus be vanishingly small.

Hi Herlock,

The injuries visited upon these poor desperate women are unimaginable to anyone with a sense of morals and justice. But ask yourself, were the Thames Torso murders by the same hand? What about McKenzie and Coles? Once you open yourself to consider whether there was more than one person capable of these abhorrent obscenities, you have to ask yourself - how many were there. In our modern era we are aware of the existance of copycats, and it is to this that Baxter alludes, and he was aware of the similarities. I am not saying that Chapman and Eddows were necessarily by different hands, just that some major players at the time raised the possibility. There were eleven whitechapel murders, but how many whitechapel murderers? What are the odds that one man perpetrated them all?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Apologies, not trying to hijack the thread here but I have seen this suggestion numerous times. Wouldn't this narrow the field of known suspects down to one?

If so, also worth reiterating this rather curious 'coincidence':

Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.

Obviously, 'very few people' also includes the 'unknown' suspects, but of the known suspects...

Hi Aethelwulf,

Also don't want to divert the thread, but a single response should be fine. Bury's not a bad suspect, and as you say, he shows that he's willing to engage in some pretty horrific behaviours. That could be viewed as a point in his favour. While one point does not solve a case, it is a least a point in favour. Personally, I'm not suspect-identity focused, mostly because I do not think there is sufficient evidence to really get that far. Something new would have to be discovered I think, but that's just me, and I'm certainly not suggesting you don't follow your interests. Who knows, you may prove me wrong.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Baxter and Phillips were involved in the investigation of many of the murders in Whitechapel, so if they have questions in their minds it would be unreasonable for armchair detectives such as ourselves to dismiss the possiblity out of hand. There is reason to suspect interruption with Nicols. Had that not occurred she may have suffered similar injuries to Chapman. I have changed my mind several times about whether Stride was a Ripper victim, and I think that the likelyhood of interruption is far higher if she were than the opposite. The thing that gives rise to the possibility that Nicols and Chapmen were by a different hand than Eddows and Kelly are the facial injuries. Modern thinking is that facial attacks generally occur when the perpetrator is known to the victim, which is, I think, what Michael was suggesting. There are many people that entertain the possibilty that the eleven Whitechapel murders involved more than one perpetrator, and that the canonical five may also have had different culprits, some of whom were also involved in other murders. To me, the murder of McKenzie resembles that of Nicols far more than that of Eddows. If the thought that there was more than one murderer is to be entertained, then how many, and how to allocate the victims is the next task.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

My disagreement with Michael is a very specific one. As you say, people have different opinions on who might or might not have been a victim of the ripper, with Stride being the one that’s most debated/disputed. My objection is to certainty. Michael’s view is no mutilations no ripper. Like most people (including yourself) I’ve never been certain either way but I accept the very obvious possibility that the killer might have been interrupted (either by Diemschutz or something else) When Michael says that we should take it as a fact that she wasn’t this is a display of bias. I appreciate of course that you won’t want to comment on that but it’s an inescapable conclusion for me (from a man who’s theories requires Stride not to have been the ripper) The most annoying part of his argument is the bizarre suggestion that if the killer had been interrupted before mutilation then evidence of his intention would have had to have been present. I struggle to find words on this particular subject. The fact that he makes this fatuous argument then tries to defend it only strengthens the evidence for bias.

I hear your point about Chapman/Eddowes but I the way I look at it is 2 middle aged women/ both killed outdoors/both killed within a mile of each other/ both killed during the short time period of ripper killings/ both had their throats cut/ both left on display legs apart/ both with abdominal mutilations/ both with intestines pulled out.

These are hardly everyday murders. The odds alone of there being 2 killers for these to women mus be vanishingly small.

[Aethelwulf]

Mutilation murders of this type are extremely rare because very few people capable of murder are also capable of performing post-mortem mutilations. Therefore, Eddowes's "suspect" would have to be one of these very rare people.

Apologies, not trying to hijack the thread here but I have seen this suggestion numerous times. Wouldn't this narrow the field of known suspects down to one?

If so, also worth reiterating this rather curious 'coincidence':

Ellen: ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.

Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.

Obviously, 'very few people' also includes the 'unknown' suspects, but of the known suspects...

[JeffHamm]

Actually so do I. The evidence of Eddowes includes a statement that she had intentions to supply the name of the killer at large to the Police. Thats a viable motive for killing her if you are that person and learn of that threat. I suspect she was plied with booze that afternoon and her loose lips sunk her ship.

Any possible motive that is not based solely on uncontrollable impulses due to a form of madness is far more probable.

Hi Michael,

Let's say Eddowes did in fact believe she knew the name of the killer and wasn't just talking up, as people do. Either she was right, and really did know who the killer was, or she was wrong (which to me seems the more probable of the two, but that just reflects my personal view).

Ok, let's look at those two possibilities, starting with she was correct.
What follows from your outline is that the actual killer of Chapman hears of her knowledge, and kills and mutilates her, in much the same way as he killed and mutilated Chapman, with an increase in the extent and breadth of her injuries. In this case, however, that means the same person has killed Chapman and Eddowes.

Therefore, you must be assuming that Eddowes was incorrect (and as I say, that does seem more likely, she didn't actually know, even if she believed she did), and the person she believed was the killer was not the murderer of Annie Chapman.
However, that means that some other person got wind that she might accuse them. Now, all that person has to be able to do is be able to verify where they were on the night Chapman or Nichols was killed, and they know that they are safe from such an accusation. Therefore, you must be assuming this unknown person, for some reason, is unable to verify where they were on either of those dates. Moreover, this person must somehow know that Eddowes has not told anyone else the name of who it is she supposedly suspects (otherwise, her death would potentially draw them in as someone the police would want to investigate).

Moreover, this person then must decide that the best way for them to avoid being falsely accused of murdering and mutilating both Nichols and Chapman, is to murder Eddowes and to attempt to recreate the mutilations. Mutilation murders of this type are extremely rare because very few people capable of murder are also capable of performing post-mortem mutilations. Therefore, Eddowes's "suspect" would have to be one of these very rare people. Furthermore, this alternative mutilator must also be someone who is willing to perform these mutilations in the street, and was willing to perform even more extensive mutilations than those performed on Chapman, including the removal of her uterus and her kidney. While removing the former could be argued to reflect an attempt to replicate that which was know concerning the Chapman murder, the removal of the kidney has no precedent. We also have to assume that this alternative killer decided to base their mutilations on the Chapman case, and not the Nichols' case, where the abdominal mutilations did not involve the removal of any organs, nor did they require the extensive opening of the gut cavity. Rather, they could be replicated much more quickly. Also, it is easier to accept that someone willing to cut a person's throat might also be willing to cut their abdomen, but to open the abdomen and handle the internal organs, such as cutting and placing parts of the intestines, the removal of the uterus, and kidney, seems harder to accept when all of these actions both increase the time at the scene and would also tend to be aversive to someone who is not deviant and obtains some sort of pleasure or positive feedback from performing these actions (which I think is a fair assumption to make with regards to Chapman's killer at least). In other words, we end up having to presume that Eddowes' "suspect", though not being the killer of Chapman and Nichols, nevertheless had very similar characteristics in that they are someone who must be:

1) unable to provide an alibi for either the Nichols or Chapman murder
2) willing to risk murder in the streets
3) willing to remain at the crime scene after committing murder
4) willing to cut open the abdomen and handle the internal organs
5) willing to then take organs (highly incriminating evidence) away from the scene
6) willing to do both 4 & 5 despite neither being necessary to replicate the Nichols' murder, which would be sufficient to divert attention away from themself.
7) willing to murder her without being able to be sure his name has not been given to someone else.
......7a) If it has he must decide this does not put him at risk for the police to check him out if Eddowes is murdered.
......7b) He must decide 7a despite the fact that if he is wrong, his inability to clear himself of either the Nichols and Chapman murder (see point 1) becomes even more complicated as he would be unable to clear himself for this one as well

To me, the improbability of those points all being true, combined with the fact we end up having to suggest someone who has so many characteristics similar to the killer of Chapman, and who also continues the escalation in the mutilations performed that is suggested by the Nichols -> Chapman sequence, that it becomes untenable to suggest the person was not the same person.

And if the person was not the same person, and given it is unlikely Eddowes' actually knew the murderer's identity, it seems more likely that Eddowes herself was just talking it up when she made such a claim, meaning she didn't really have anyone in mind. And talking it up is a common human behaviour. We only know of Eddowes' claim because she was murdered. I'm sure that other such claims were being made by other people who were not unfortunate enough to become victims. For example, it is recorded that Mary Kelly also expressed some fear about the murders, which is hardly surprising, and I'm sure that too was very common. We have reports that there was a wide spread sense of fear, and Kelly's statement would reflect that. We also know the police were getting all sorts of "tips" and "suggestions" as to who JtR was, meaning there were many people who "thought they knew the identity of the murderer", and in all likelihood Eddowes' statement is just a specific example of that too.

It is therefore highly improbable that JtR would even have known that Eddowes' made such a claim, nor is there any reason to suspect her claim, above all others, would be worth singling out.

Given that, it would appear that Eddowes was simply chosen at random, and was murdered by the same person who murdered Nichols and Chapman. The one suggestion that has been made that might point to different killers has to do with the evaluation of the mutilations (typically with regards to the removal of the uterus). This, however, may simply reflect the difference in the lighting conditions at the two crime scenes, and also the likelihood that the mutilations were performed more quickly in the case of Eddowes My last suggestion is based on the suggestion that he worked faster so he could do even more without substantially increasing the amount of time he is willing to spend at the crime scene. That's obviously something I cannot know if it is true or not, so should be viewed as a hypothesis (working faster, etc) and it's implications if true (he wanted to do more in roughly the same time period).

Anyway, I don't expect you to change your mind, nor to agree with me, but, for what it's worth, I enjoyed working through the logic and implications of your idea.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Silly, childish, poorly thought out, nonsensical, conspiracist motivations yes. Ones that only you could possibly believe.

Then again, only you do believe them.

Hi Herlock,

Baxter and Phillips were involved in the investigation of many of the murders in Whitechapel, so if they have questions in their minds it would be unreasonable for armchair detectives such as ourselves to dismiss the possiblity out of hand. There is reason to suspect interruption with Nicols. Had that not occurred she may have suffered similar injuries to Chapman. I have changed my mind several times about whether Stride was a Ripper victim, and I think that the likelyhood of interruption is far higher if she were than the opposite. The thing that gives rise to the possibility that Nicols and Chapmen were by a different hand than Eddows and Kelly are the facial injuries. Modern thinking is that facial attacks generally occur when the perpetrator is known to the victim, which is, I think, what Michael was suggesting. There are many people that entertain the possibilty that the eleven Whitechapel murders involved more than one perpetrator, and that the canonical five may also have had different culprits, some of whom were also involved in other murders. To me, the murder of McKenzie resembles that of Nicols far more than that of Eddows. If the thought that there was more than one murderer is to be entertained, then how many, and how to allocate the victims is the next task.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Phillips thought they were done by different men, and he saw way more victims in death than you did.

You and many others support madness as the only viable motivation for killing any of the Canonical Group, when in reality other possible motives are already on the table.

Silly, childish, poorly thought out, nonsensical, conspiracist motivations yes. Ones that only you could possibly believe.

Then again, only you do believe them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock;



How about spend less time insulting and spend just a bit of it adding some value to the discussions, instead of insisting that all who point out the facts that discount your own pedantic theories are wrong? Maybe try and prove your own ideas...and just for the jolly, use actual evidence instead of " because I said so".

You do as much ‘insulting’ as I do so don’t play Mr Innocent.

Ive proven, by using logic, reason and common sense that your suggestion that there should have been evidence of interruption is utter twaddle. This shouldn’t even be a subject for discussion. It’s not opinion, it’s not interpretation. You are categorically and very obviously wrong.

[Michael W Richards]

Of course you do. Nothing to do with evidence of course because the chances of Chapman and Eddowes being killed by different men must be vanishingly small. It’s because you have a suspect for Chapman and he was out of action one the night of Stride and Eddowes. You’re an open book Michael. Your opinion in this is requirement-based.

Phillips thought they were done by different men, and he saw way more victims in death than you did.

You and many others support madness as the only viable motivation for killing any of the Canonical Group, when in reality other possible motives are already on the table.

[Michael W Richards]

Herlock;

That’s complete nonsense Michael and you know it. I might ask why it’s ok for you just to assume that Eagle lied without any evidence of it? ( Basically, because his time doesn’t agree with Hoschberg and Koz you assume that he lied)

Ok, guilty. When 3 people says where they were and what was happening and its at the same place and approx time and they all agree, then someone who has no-one to validate their claim says something completely different and doesnt even see someone else who also claims to have been there and seen nothing at 12:40..then yeah, the majority of corroborated accounts would logically be the ones to use.


You keep mentioning this ‘evidence’ that had to have been there if the killer had been interrupted. This is where your theory is founded on quicksand that even a child could see and avoid. It’s not that you don’t understand this Michael it’s that you don’t want to acknowledge the truth. So……let’s go back in time again…

Sorry I keep using evidence to discount your weak theories, but its a fact. Nothing about that crime scene indicates any interruption or incomplete acts.


Why so determined to stamp out even the possibility of interruption? Why so adamant? I think that we all know the answer to that one.

We all SHOULD know the answer, true. But some of us want to keep any door open to allow for something to have prevented further mutilations, and thereby support their own theory that a single cut victim is equivalent to the murder and evicerations of other victims.

How about spend less time insulting and spend just a bit of it adding some value to the discussions, instead of insisting that all who point out the facts that discount your own pedantic theories are wrong? Maybe try and prove your own ideas...and just for the jolly, use actual evidence instead of " because I said so".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Actually so do I. The evidence of Eddowes includes a statement that she had intentions to supply the name of the killer at large to the Police. Thats a viable motive for killing her if you are that person and learn of that threat. I suspect she was plied with booze that afternoon and her loose lips sunk her ship.

Any possible motive that is not based solely on uncontrollable impulses due to a form of madness is far more probable.

Of course you do. Nothing to do with evidence of course because the chances of Chapman and Eddowes being killed by different men must be vanishingly small. It’s because you have a suspect for Chapman and he was out of action one the night of Stride and Eddowes. You’re an open book Michael. Your opinion in this is requirement-based.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, but positing an interruption requires that one provide evidence such an event did occur, not that it could have occurred. Many things could have occurred that left no evidence, but when inserting such an event into serious consideration it is essential that some basis exists for that to have taken place. Using the fact she isnt mutilated isnt one of them, because we have the proof that after that single throat cut her killer did not as much as touch her, let alone attempt to re-position her...as was done previously...attempt to spread her legs, lift her skirt, that kind of hard evidence. There is none. Therefore the Interruption theory is founded upon quicksand.

That’s complete nonsense Michael and you know it. I might ask why it’s ok for you just to assume that Eagle lied without any evidence of it? ( Basically, because his time doesn’t agree with Hoschberg and Koz you assume that he lied) I really don’t know why I or anyone else has to keep wasting time on this issue. If someone intends to do something and something occurs before they get to do it then we can’t expect to see evidence of it. And if we can’t expect to see evidence of it we cannot prove that the intention was there in the first place.

You keep mentioning this ‘evidence’ that had to have been there if the killer had been interrupted. This is where your theory is founded on quicksand that even a child could see and avoid. It’s not that you don’t understand this Michael it’s that you don’t want to acknowledge the truth. So……let’s go back in time again…

The killer strangles Stride, she’s lowered to the ground, he cuts her throat intending to mutilate her next and then….bang….at that specific point in time Michael something distracts the killer (whatever it was) ……. now pretend that you’ve materialised at that place in that frozen moment in time…….what do you see? A woman lying on the ground with her throat cut and with no signs of an intent to mutilate though we know that’s what he intended.

Why can’t you grasp this?

The problem is about being honest about unknowns. Firstly, none of us know who killed Stride. Secondly, none of us know if the killer was the ripper or not. So a reasonable position is to say that Stride might or might not have been a ripper victim because, although we cannot state as a fact that interruption occurred, we can state for a fact that it might have occurred.

Im not stating for a fact that this occurred; only that it’s possible that this occurred. But you are absolutely intent on claiming to know the unknown. So intent that you won’t even admit of the possibility of something that everyone else can see the possibility of. You are claiming as a certainty something that you cannot possibly know.

Why so determined to stamp out even the possibility of interruption? Why so adamant? I think that we all know the answer to that one.

[Michael W Richards]

From the summary by the Coroner Mr. Wynne E. Baxter at the Inquest for Elizabeth Stride referring to her injuries:
There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;

The Coroner believed that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by different men.

Cheers, George

Actually so do I. The evidence of Eddowes includes a statement that she had intentions to supply the name of the killer at large to the Police. Thats a viable motive for killing her if you are that person and learn of that threat. I suspect she was plied with booze that afternoon and her loose lips sunk her ship.

Any possible motive that is not based solely on uncontrollable impulses due to a form of madness is far more probable.

[Michael W Richards]

Alice Mackenzie might or might not have been a ripper victim as I always said (despite my stalkers lies). Exactly the same applies to Stride. Trying to eliminate her due to the lack of mutilation when a possible explanation for this exists is dire. Please look up the the meaning of ‘interruption.’

Its difficult to take an opinion about Mackenzie and Stride from a man who believes that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by different men.

Ah, but positing an interruption requires that one provide evidence such an event did occur, not that it could have occurred. Many things could have occurred that left no evidence, but when inserting such an event into serious consideration it is essential that some basis exists for that to have taken place. Using the fact she isnt mutilated isnt one of them, because we have the proof that after that single throat cut her killer did not as much as touch her, let alone attempt to re-position her...as was done previously...attempt to spread her legs, lift her skirt, that kind of hard evidence. There is none. Therefore the Interruption theory is founded upon quicksand.

[JeffHamm]

And Diemschitz was behind the kitchen door? I thought he returned to the body, with Kozebrodsky?

The traditional story is incoherent. Not many people seem to mind.

Hi NBFN,

That's the problem, the press reports have, if you squint I suppose, a sort of common story underneath, but they can differ in the specific details. I take it, your approach is to presume the press report everything exactly as they were told, and do not fill in details, or get the details wrong, during the process from interviews, note taking, editing, etc.

Personally, I tend to view each step of the process a potential source of "noise", where information gets garbled. So each time the same person tells their story, there will be differences, simply because nobody tells the same story exactly the same way each time, and it is a fact that people get the details wrong. So, each time they tell it, they will introduce "noise", as the details shift.

Then, introduce different interviewers. The police, the coroner, a newsman, etc, all will create a different context, and introduce new questions and probe different ideas. That too will introduce noise, causing more details to differ. A news reporter will want the person to expand and will accept details the speaker may only view as "possible", or even as a "maybe", while the police and corner are going to emphasise a different criterion, that of being sure about something. As a result, with different criterion settings, the story can take different shapes.

We have the issue of how accurate the reporter, or court recorder, was in making the transcript. Did they get every word down? Did every word they get down actually get spoken? And again, more noise.

News stories go through an editor, who wasn't even there at the interview. They remove portions of an article, they reword, they, you know, edit things, to fit the column space. That again introduces noise.

Different news outlets have different political ideologies, and that too will influence how they tell their stories. And remember, to the news, it's their story, not the story of the person they interviewed. The person they interviewed is just a character in the news story. And not all news outlets have the agenda of reporting the factual news, then, as now, many view events in the world simply as cherries to pick in support of their political ideology.

To my way of thinking, pointing out how different news outlets have different versions of the same story is entirely unsurprising. In fact, if they didn't differ, I would think they are all just reprinting from a common source, meaning we really only have one record. When the stories do differ and clearly do not represent a common source for printing, we have multiple versions. Rather than focusing on how they differ in the specifics, I tend to think it more informative to look for a common underlying structure (the gist of the stories) first. After that, look to see which details appear to be outliers, and if some bit of information that contradicts the majority is not also common, or it only appears shortly after the actual event and then never gets mentioned again, it's quite likely that outlier is an error.

Anyway, I think you'll end up chasing a lot of will-o-the-wisps if you view the reports as representing exactly what the person said.

As for Deimshutz's pony and cart, I believe he states it was up by the door. There's no reason why it would ever get mentioned again. If a modern story reported that Person X arrived at the crime scene, and had parked their car across the street to get out to examine the person on the ground, that might be the only time their car gets mentioned (and we could be lucky to even have that). It's the same thing, he arrived, and his pony and cart were moved and parked further up. And there is no reason why any newspaper is going to waste column space mentioning it again.

- Jeff