Diemschutz arrival

[Wickerman]

With Stride, we are missing any indication of strangulation. Stride seems to be more at home with the likes of a Coles & McKenzie style murder - the knife first, whereas "Jack" had them down on the ground before he pulled the knife.
How did he get them there?
If you think Stride was also on the ground when she was attacked, how did he get her there with "no signs of a struggle'?

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Its to do with the throat cut.

The minor difference between Stride's cut throat and that of others has strictly to do with two factors - the obnoxious (from the killer's point of view) scarf around her neck, and the jagged stones over which her neck was lying. He had to use his free hand to pull the scarf up and raise her neck from the rocks, instead of using it to provide the necessary resistance to get a deep cut. For this reason and ONLY this reason does her neck wound differ. Otherwise, we have that rarest of knife murderers - a confident killer who gets the job done in one clean swipe.

The neck wound is one of the classic red herrings of the Stride case, though by no means as far out there as most others.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

And the discrepancy to Hanbury Street is where? (Apart from Stride lying on her side, which incidentally I believe is related to the fact that the perp didn't get the chance to mutilate her like the other victims, having been interrupted by Diemshitz and his horse.)


Phu-leeeaaase, not again with this! The inquest took care of all of this.
But then again, online Ripperology is very, very, very circular...

On the first paragraph I would like some clarification if you would....are you using the word discrepancy to mean obvious differences? Strides demeanor in death has nothing in common with Annie Chapmans, including the dead womans distance from the street.

"The Inquest took care of all this"....you mean the Inquest where we assume Israel appeared despite the records, or the real one? Spooner did stick to his story and timeline, he was corrected...because he "must" have been mistaken on the time. Unlike Israel, Louis, Morris and Lave....who "must" have been telling the truth.

The minute you assume that details of this murder are dealt with adequately in the Inquest you lose sight of the ball. If Diemshitz arrived before 12:45, then Israel lied, Morris lied, Lave lied and Issac K, Spooner and Heschberg told the truth that night.

When you have 3 witnesses agree on something, despite your inclinations to ditch any evidence that doesnt match your preconceptions, you need to consider it strongly. People that really want to solve the crime should anyway.

When you are looking for "Jack "all the time, lurking in the dark corners... you'll imagine you see him just about everywhere. But marrying that with any hard evidence in the Berner Street murder should prove sobering enough.

Cheers

[mariab]

Liz Stride in death looked to one policeman, "as if lain gently down". Her head was inches from the wall, feet close to the open gate, she was on her side, and her skirt was not raised an iota. Not only is that a poor spot to commence mutilations,...(in the laneway to the empty yard, by the gates),...the side door was ajar at the time and some of the cottagers were awake.

And the discrepancy to Hanbury Street is where? (Apart from Stride lying on her side, which incidentally I believe is related to the fact that the perp didn't get the chance to mutilate her like the other victims, having been interrupted by Diemshitz and his horse.)

Diemshu(i)tz stated that he was sure that he arrived home at 1am, yet other witnesses including Spooner, Heschberg and Isaac Kozebrodski,... based on their interviews that same night and in Spooner's case, in his Inquest testimony as well, ...stated that they were alerted to a woman lying in the passage before 12:45.

Phu-leeeaaase, not again with this! The inquest took care of all of this.
But then again, online Ripperology is very, very, very circular...

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Liz Stride in death looked to one policeman, "as if lain gently down". Her head was inches from the wall, feet close to the open gate, she was on her side, and her skirt was not raised an iota. Not only is that a poor spot to commence mutilations,...(in the laneway to the empty yard, by the gates),...the side door was ajar at the time and some of the cottagers were awake.

There is nothing within that evidence that suggests the killer was interrupted or disturbed. Therefore the argument can only be considered hypothetical at best.

Diemshu(i)tz stated that he was sure that he arrived home at 1am, yet other witnesses including Spooner, Heschberg and Isaac Kozebrodski,... based on their interviews that same night and in Spooner's case, in his Inquest testimony as well, ...stated that they were alerted to a woman lying in the passage before 12:45. In Isaac's case he said he arrived back at the club at half past 12 and about 10 minutes later he was called out to the passage to see the woman and then sent, ALONE, to get help.

That statement contradicts Louis, Morris, Lave and of course, Israel. It does not contradict Fanny or James because we know that they did not have a view of the gates at all times from the time PC Smith left at 12:35.

For myself, I dont find the idea that the club members may have fabricated details of arrivals and witnessed events to protect themselves fanciful. Some do.

But one thing is clear, the idea of an interruption is little more than an idea. One without any supporting evidence.

Best regards

[mariab]

Its to do with the throat cut.

You think it was too shallow?

Monty, might I ask what you think about Stride's time of death?

[Monty]

However, this is a massive, huge leap of judgement. The single fact that Stride wasn't mutilated does not by any means outweigh the wealth of evidence which does suggest her murder was associated with that of Catherine Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Its nothing to do with Strides non-mutilation, or Eddowes mutilation.

Its to do with the throat cut.

Monty

[mariab]

It is most likely Strides killer was not disturbed by Diemshitz, and that mutilations were not on the killer agenda.

Monty, do you have anything against the notion that Stride's time of death was shortly before 1.00 a.m., or do you suggest that she was spontaneously killed by some anarchist from the Club? I cannot imagine that you're seeing this case as a domestic?!

I would mostly agree with this statement, except I would replace 'most likely' with 'possible', and it's certainly possible that mutilations were not the killer's intention with Stride.

;-) I would starkly disagree with Monty's statement, and I would replace "most likely Stride's killer was not disturbed by Diemshitz" with “most likely Stride's killer WAS disturbed by Diemshitz". The evidence fits too good to deny this scenario, which was also accepted by the contemporary police.

Plus I starkly disagree that the perp might have planned a double event with the precaution of already knowing he would NOT mutilate the first victim. There are 3 facts that strongly speak against such a suggestion:

1) Dutfield's Yard in its similarity to Hanbury Street would have NOT constituted a too different murder scene for the perp to engage in a quick murder followed by mutilation again. In my interpretation, the only difference in the situation between Cadosh and Diemshitz possibly having witnessed a murder (or, in Diemshitz' case, the immediate aftermath of a murder) is the presence of Diemshitz' poney, about which the perp would have fully expected that the horse would be more of a danger to him, in being more able to detect a dead body than a human would. Victorians knew that horses are extremely nervous animals, making lots of noise when disturbed.

2) The perp most likely didn't have a problem running around for a good while with Eddowes' apron piece cum kidney. Personally I cannot imagine him deciding to refrain from mutilating just to avoid being “covered in blood“, esp. since at this point in his killing career the perp seems to have mastered the technique of killing without being splashed. (As evidence of the bodies in situ very clearly demonstrates.)

3) The mutilations, esp. in their increasing severity, appear to have been TOO important to the perp for him to have lightly accepted to dispense with them, even for security reasons.

The single fact that Stride wasn't mutilated does not by any means outweigh the wealth of evidence which does suggest her murder was associated with that of Catherine Eddowes.

Agree.

[Tom_Wescott]

It is most likely Strides killer was not disturbed by Diemshitz, and that mutilations were not on the killer agenda.

I would mostly agree with this statement, except I would replace 'most likely' with 'possible', and it's certainly possible that mutilations were not the killer's intention with Stride.

And due to that, the idea Nichols and Chapmans killer did for Stride is doubtful.

However, this is a massive, huge leap of judgement. The single fact that Stride wasn't mutilated does not by any means outweigh the wealth of evidence which does suggest her murder was associated with that of Catherine Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

The Casebook notes on Stride, discuss the idea that upon the arrival of Diemschutz, the Ripper took fright and hid, until the startled man left to get help, and then made off into the night. This is all very plausible and I do not doubt that is what happened.

With respect, Miakaal, you should doubt it.

It is most likely Strides killer was not disturbed by Diemshitz, and that mutilations were not on the killer agenda.

And due to that, the idea Nichols and Chapmans killer did for Stride is doubtful.

Extremely doubtful if we trust to the medical and other evidence.

[Monty]

And back to Diemshitz.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Ah yes I see know - but I would have suspected a spelling mistake.
Conject away

[Monty]

Either put your glasses on Ed or change the font size on your I-phone.

I stated lil, as in little. Not ill.

It is a common affliction, and one which you are not immune from.

All this distraction for such a small point, and one nobody really cares about.

Well done you.

Then again, my conjecture is not aimed at an individual, more the action. I don't do condeming without damning evidence. So your accusations are really quite misleading. And that is becoming a habit of yours.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Ill humour and scorn? I merely pointed out your interest in conjecture which seemed to me to be in marked contrast to the affected position you adopt on other threads.
It is a common affliction on here that critics of conjecture on theories they depreciate deplore the practice, while enthusiastically conject on theories they agree with.

[lynn cates]

J M

Hello Miakaal. Thanks.

Why should James Maybrick be on the list? Can't think of a single reason.

Cheers.
LC