Diemschutz arrival

[lynn cates]

inference

Hello Mac. Thanks.

Deduction? Are you quite sure? Looks more like induction to me.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

The Cleaner?

Since we don't know why Liz Stride was where she was when she is attacked and killed, and since we do know that Liz Stride had told her landlady that she was "at work among the Jews" recently.

A thought just occurs to me (always dangerous in my case, as you never know where it may lead!). Might Liz have been employed, on a casual basis, to work as a cleaner at the IWMEC? If so, she could have been waiting for the last few punters to leave so that she could start work.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac.

"We know there was a fella knocking about going with prostitutes into dark corners and slitting their throats. Odds are it was Jack."

Really? How do we know this?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Simple deduction.

The number of murders around that time suggest one person knocked a few off.

Plus, similarities in execution.

[lynn cates]

episteme

Hello Mac.

"We know there was a fella knocking about going with prostitutes into dark corners and slitting their throats. Odds are it was Jack."

Really? How do we know this?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Jack wasnt the only man brandishing a knife and/or cutting women, or killing them. He was the only one cutting their bellies open after he killed them.

Cheers

Hello Micky,

The above is probably the crux of it.

Go on then, who else was cutting prostitutes' throats in dark corners in East London in 1888?

[Michael W Richards]

How many other people were knocking about going with prostitutes in dark spots before cutting their throats and wandering off content with a job well done? How many domestics happen in a dark spot off the street? We know there was a fella knocking about going with prostitutes into dark corners and slitting their throats. Odds are it was Jack.

Hi Fleetwood,

If you assume that the killer known as Jack the Ripper was content with a slit throat as "a job well done", then I can see why you would assume that Liz Stride fits with that kind of killer. Since the killer was given a nickname before the murder of Stride by the person who penned Dear Boss, one might think that the most relevant aspects of the WM crimes to the general public was that he "ripped" the woman open after the throat cut.

Since we dont know why Liz Stride was where she was when she is attacked and killed, and since we do know that Liz Stride had told her landlady that she was "at work among the Jews" recently, likely as a charwoman or maid, and that she in fact worked cleaning rooms that afternoon for her, assumptions that she was prostituting herself at that time seem unconvincing. Much of the circumstantial evidence points to an anticipated social encounter, the cashous and the flower on her breast are 2 points within that framework.

I would also add that a dark spot mere feet from a lit street isnt really a "dark corner", a dark corner could have been found though, much farther back in Dutfields Yard.

Why is really the only valid filter,.... not How, or with What, or Where,...and the only way we can determine a possible Why in the case of Strides murder is to set aside a knee jerk mad serial killer pat answer.

Based on the evidence, not assumptions, Liz Strides killer intended to injure her severely and most probably kill her. Thats all.

And murderers like that were common among the murderers of the period.

Jack wasnt the only man brandishing a knife and/or cutting women, or killing them. He was the only one cutting their bellies open after he killed them.

Cheers

[Bridewell]

We know there was a fella knocking about going with prostitutes into dark corners and slitting their throats. Odds are it was Jack.

I agree.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Unless you subscribe to the contemporary view that the killer was interrupted and carried out the intended mutilations on a second victim. If the killer was BS man then interrupted he certainly was on at least one occasion. If there was indeed no intention to mutilate Stride, however, the two possibilities seem to me to be:

(1) Different killer.
or
(2) Same killer, but different motive.

(1) is more likely, but (2) cannot be discounted.

Wonder why the killer felt so safe at such a risky location.

Regards, Bridewell.

I don't think it's a case of feeling safe.

What other option did he have? Where else could he have gone with a prostitute? Only a dark spot just off the street.

I doubt very much that he just wanted to cut her throat. Having said that, Cutbush was happy enough just, and I say just in this context, stabbing a few in the back before merrily jogging off down the street.

How many other people were knocking about going with prostitutes in dark spots before cutting their throats and wandering off content with a job well done? How many domestics happen in a dark spot off the street? We know there was a fella knocking about going with prostitutes into dark corners and slitting their throats. Odds are it was Jack.

[Bridewell]

No Intention To Mutilate

But when we look at possible reasons for killing Liz within the known evidence we do not see any indication at all to support a belief that her killer ultimately sought mutilations of the abdominal and pelvic regions.

Unless you subscribe to the contemporary view that the killer was interrupted and carried out the intended mutilations on a second victim. If the killer was BS man then interrupted he certainly was on at least one occasion. If there was indeed no intention to mutilate Stride, however, the two possibilities seem to me to be:

(1) Different killer.
or
(2) Same killer, but different motive.

(1) is more likely, but (2) cannot be discounted.

Wonder why the killer felt so safe at such a risky location.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Garry. I would have to disagree with some of your points about bloodletting, but I don't have the time at the moment. However, I think that arguing that a killer would operate in identical mode, even when under very different circumstances, is a bit of a labored argument and in no way supported by any evidence throughout the history of murder. If it's simply a matter of tearing apart the Stride case evidence and looking for those little things that are different, you'll have no trouble in finding them. Just as you'd have no trouble in finding them in the cases of the other women. If Stride was killed by a different man than Eddowes, then those two men were working together. There's not much room around that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, I believe that one of the main reasons to look into all the "little" differences here is that the apparent motive for killing Liz Stride in the first place was satisfied by just her murder. There are no additional indicators that suggest more, or less, was planned by her killer. In that respect some kind of altercation like the one suggested by the Schwartz story makes some sense, a brief act of uncontrolled anger or aggression.

That is not what the evidence in the first 2 Canonicals leads us to believe, those murders were apparently stepping stones on a path that lead to mutilating the abdomens and pelvic regions.

Its one thing to suggest that small differences dont negate larger similarities, but in the case of Stride the similarity list is exceedingly short. At night, a middle aged Unfortunate without a paid bed for the night, who gets her throat cut. But when we look at possible reasons for killing Liz within the known evidence we do not see any indication at all to support a belief that her killer ultimately sought mutilations of the abdominal and pelvic regions.

Which I believe the evidence in the first 2 cases clearly does.

Cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

On this basis, Tom, if you remain certain that Stride was lying on her side when her throat was cut, you really ought to be questioning her validity as a Ripper victim.

Hi Garry. I would have to disagree with some of your points about bloodletting, but I don't have the time at the moment. However, I think that arguing that a killer would operate in identical mode, even when under very different circumstances, is a bit of a labored argument and in no way supported by any evidence throughout the history of murder. If it's simply a matter of tearing apart the Stride case evidence and looking for those little things that are different, you'll have no trouble in finding them. Just as you'd have no trouble in finding them in the cases of the other women. If Stride was killed by a different man than Eddowes, then those two men were working together. There's not much room around that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

difficulty

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Both these actions (tightened scarf and throat cut), as shown by the medical evidence, happened when she was down or falling.'

Agreed.

"Of course, screaming at full throttle whilst wrestling with someone may not be as easy as we imagine."

Indeed. Perhaps even more difficult with a severed throat.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Well, according to Schwartz, she screamed after she`d been thrown down.
Perhaps, the scarf was been pulled tight and her windpipe been severed.

Both these actions (tightened scarf and throat cut), as shown by the medical evidence, happened when she was down or falling.

Of course, screaming at full throttle whilst wrestling with someone may not be as easy as we imagine.

[lynn cates]

menu

Hello Miakaal. Thanks.

"So do feel that whoever killed her had intended to, rather than a spontaneous murder, which might have been a more random attack?"

Great question. I see two distinct scenarios.

1. Liz was to meet someone around 12.30. She met him about 12.40-12.45 at the side door. He killed her as they walked out of the yard. (See my re-enactment.)

If this is correct, obviously it was pre-meditated.

2. Someone killed her in a fit of anger. Likely assassin was BS man. Likely a club member or attendee (Rob Clack's thesis).

If this is correct, then Schwartz is telling the truth.

My only problem with #2 is that AFTER BS man attacks, THEN Liz must:

i) go into the yard with her attacker

ii) calm down

iii) go for the cachous

iv) BS must now have ANOTHER temper flare up and kill her

One last possibility is a hybrid of #1 & #2. Liz meets her attacker at the side door, they head out, his temper flares. In the hybrid, Schwartz is fibbing and we need a powerful motive for such a sudden onslaught of temper.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

gibberish

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"Surely, if it was done 'not very loudly' it wasn't a scream, as we understand the word? She cried out? She called to him? She tried to speak? A not very loud scream is something of an oxymoron"

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC