Diemschutz arrival

[lynn cates]

better

Hello (again) Mac.

"Doesn't mean Jack wasn't disturbed by someone coming out or going into the club, prior to the cart fella's arrival, though."

Quite right. And I think this is MUCH more fruitful that adverting to Dimshits. Of course, I see no reason to think in terms of an interruption anyway.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

hmm

Hello Colin.

"might it not simply be the case that Diemschutz stumbled across a body which had already been discovered"

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but . . .

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

assumptions

Hello Mac. Thanks.

I agree that Polly and Annie were prostituting when killed. I'd like some evidence for the others.

It seems to me that, given one faulty assumption, more must follow. Soon, the case is unrecognisable.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just dragging the whole thing back to Diemschutz and his arrival. While the timing discrepancy is a concern, might it not simply be the case that Diemschutz stumbled across a body which had already been discovered, but then abandoned by the finders going in search of help?

Regards, Bridewell.

I thought that was a decent idea, too, but looking at the times there would have been people round the body by the time the cart fella arrived.

Undoubtedly, someone is out with their times, and as the cart fella is the one who said he looked at the clcok - then I'd say he's more likely to be right.

Doesn't mean Jack wasn't disturbed by someone coming out or going into the club, prior to the cart fella's arrival, though.

[Bridewell]

Just dragging the whole thing back to Diemschutz and his arrival. While the timing discrepancy is a concern, might it not simply be the case that Diemschutz stumbled across a body which had already been discovered, but then abandoned by the finders going in search of help?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac. Thought experiment time. By chance, I was reading about the Brown murder in Westminster just today. As you must know, she died by having her throat cut about 2 hours before Liz and only 3 miles away.

Although her mentally disturbed husband readily confessed, suppose he had not.

I submit to you that we would have threads discussing the thesis that "Jack" killed Mrs. Brown, but was interrupted before mutilation began. Next, he went to Berner street and did for Liz. ANOTHER interruption. By now, he was in a frenzy and found Kate at Mitre Square. Success!

And I PROMISE you, someone would be counting the 3 miles from Westminster to Berner and demonstrating the plausibility of the 1-2 hour time frame.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I personally wouldn't.

The evidence suggests that Jack killed prostitutes in East London and outdoors, with the exception of Kelly.

The location fits Jack, rather than a domestic.

[Michael W Richards]

I am amazed that people want to insert an interruption into this murder...,, at least that means many still believe that a "Ripper" rips, and an interruption is just about the only way that a "Ripper" would have been involved in the death of Stride, so I guess that is a good sign overall.

As for how many men were carrying any using knives during this period, aside from the many, many men who carried them daily as a work tool or for recreation, or for defense or intimidation, some carried them to kill people with. Of the 11 knife related incidents in the Whitechapel Murders file only 5 were suggested as linked by killer by contemporary officials. Thats just the unsolved ones. There were Torsos before during and after the Fall of Terror, and there was a third throat slit on the Double Event night.

This Jack fellow shared London with others of his ilk, he didnt have it all to himself.

Cheers.

[lynn cates]

O K

Hello Maria. Thanks. See what I can do.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

But why class them together without evidence and then, once together, using the others as a guide to that one?

I'm sorry Lynn, but I'm not getting entangled into a discussion about the 2+2+1 theory.

Do you think you can eventually find a minute to look up that Danish diplomate for me? I'll ask my boss about Russian speaking people in Stanford, he's there fairly often and might know peeps from the Russian lit department. (One hand washes the other and so on... Lol. Insert sound of Machiavellian laugh here. )

[lynn cates]

Brown

Hello Mac. Thought experiment time. By chance, I was reading about the Brown murder in Westminster just today. As you must know, she died by having her throat cut about 2 hours before Liz and only 3 miles away.

Although her mentally disturbed husband readily confessed, suppose he had not.

I submit to you that we would have threads discussing the thesis that "Jack" killed Mrs. Brown, but was interrupted before mutilation began. Next, he went to Berner street and did for Liz. ANOTHER interruption. By now, he was in a frenzy and found Kate at Mitre Square. Success!

And I PROMISE you, someone would be counting the 3 miles from Westminster to Berner and demonstrating the plausibility of the 1-2 hour time frame.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is almost like you say that no-one else had the ability,.... so who killed Coles and McKenzie?


Regards, Jon S.

That is a fair enough point, Jon.

But, there is a difference in that we're talking about 5 murders in a short space of time. I suppose there is more chance of someone else coming along in 1889 or 1891 than there was of someone else cutting throats during Jacks reign.

I think it's certainly possible that someone else was knocking about, but is it likely based on murder figures in London around that time - particularly these types of murders.

How many prostitutes were having their throats cut in dark spots in 1888?

Personally, I think Coles was a Jack and Stride.

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Maria.

"The Diemshitz-cum-poney-interrupting-the-killer is the most likely scenario for what happened that night in Dutfield's Yard, accepted even by the contemporary police."

Yes. But did they show it to be the case or merely assume it?

"I don't see any reason whatsoever to question it since it fits so well with the evidence. And I'm all for simplicity – when it fits with the evidence."

Which evidence? If you mean the other WCM that autumn, maybe. But why class them together without evidence and then, once together, using the others as a guide to that one?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

paradigm

Hello Cris.

"explaining the reason that Stride was apparently "just killed" by the murderer being interrupted by Diemshitz is based on supposition with no tangible evidence that this was the case. We don't know what happened except that Elizabeth Stride had her throat cut."

Precisely. This should be posted on every Stride thread.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Some posters are still underestimating what has been done to Stride. Somebody cut her throat. Skillfully and quickly. She died within seconds and nothing could have saved her. The job was done and well done.

It is almost like you say that no-one else had the ability,.... so who killed Coles and McKenzie?


Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

It also can not be denied that--given the general evidence every student is aware of--the person who killed Catherine Eddowes would be a strong suspect in this murder too. There are enough similarities to make this so. But explaining the reason that Stride was apparently "just killed" by the murderer being interrupted by Diemshitz is based on supposition with no tangible evidence that this was the case. We don't know what happened except that Elizabeth Stride had her throat cut.

Oh come on Cris, now you're attempting to be all “scientific“. Most of the evidence pertaining to the Whitechapel murders is circumstantial anyway, due to the majority of the sources having been lost and to the fact that the investigation was never concluded. The Diemshitz-cum-poney-interrupting-the-killer is the most likely scenario for what happened that night in Dutfield's Yard, accepted even by the contemporary police. I don't see any reason whatsoever to question it since it fits so well with the evidence. And I'm all for simplicity – when it fits with the evidence.

I know that my explanation is probably too "cut and dried" for most who like to theorize beyond the limited criteria that most
historians apply, but that is the way I see it.

I hope your barb on theorizers was not addressed to me, as you may well know that I'm a historian with a PhD, earning my life out of research.
And by the way, I disagree with the sheer historian's approach. I think what the case requires is a combination of a historian's and researcher's approach, and it's mostly the latter than eventually might succeed in managing to make more sense out of this case.

I just try not to get involved anymore in circular debates that accomplish very little.

With you at 100% here. You've read one Stride thread, you've read them all, and I can't see any progress in these circular discussions since I joined casebook in 2010.