Diemschutz arrival

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

I have a question and it would be interesting to see what kind of responses this gets.....thread related, of course,.....what evidence do we possess that, without equivocation, tells us that Louis Diemshitz arrived after 12:45?

His own statements are excluded here for the purpose of examining this evidence without bias. Since he has no corroberation until he and a club member meet up to Spooner, (by his account, after 1am, by Spooners, nearer to 12:45), that seems fair to me.

What evidence proves he arrived later than 12:45?

That would be almost immediately after Eagle and Lave say they left the passage, 2 ships that simply passed in the night apparently.

Cheers all

[Michael W Richards]

A sudden attack is unlikely attending main witnesses. Most probably the killer caught from the rear, while she was taking cachous and thinking about I don't know. She wasn't in alarm but quiet enough. That before they struggled. Few seconds but the murder has already planned to kill.
For this the murder pulled the scarf barring cries (if she was in feet or not when she cried, it doesn't care) and pushed her into the yard. He held the scarf, maybe she spinned around or stumbled in the irregular soil and so the killer, kept on holding the scarf, drove her falling. Not fast, quite slowly. The weight of Stride made the scarf knot very tight, almost chocking. Perhaps she involved him on fall and the killer directed himself (and Stride) toward to the next wall trying to stay in feet.
With the free hand (the right) now the killer takes a knife in his pocket and carves the neck from the opposite side planting the point and pulling when Stride is on her side.
Cachous in hand, knot very tight, no blood stains around and a death rapidly coming by choking (jugular cut).. but above all the murder was well determined to kill and wrongly Stride trusted in him.

Hi Nino,

If you review your first sentence then the next 2, they are contradictory. Her being unaware of any impending danger almost assures us that the attack was sudden.

The only scuffle on record is the brief altercation with BSM as described by Israel Schwartz, there is no indication that the victim was in any physical struggle based on the physical evidence, other than an assumed brief one due to the scarf being twisted and pulled.

Your suggestion of the event is fine but it need not be starting outside the yard, it may have begun and ended on roughly the spot she was found at, a 2 second murder.

Youre suggestion that Stride must have trusted him assumes that she knew him to some degree, not essential. If she was in the passageway waiting for someone who was in the club then she wouldnt be expecting an assault. She might even freshen her breath while waiting.

Cheers

[Nino]

books carry me too far

The killer may have used her own scarf to choke her, the doctors do not appear to have allowed for that consideration.

he must have choked her while she was on her feet. We know her throat was not cut while she was on her feet because there was no blood across her shoulder or down her left side.

Therefore, Stride was on her side when her throat was cut, but she was on her feet when he choked her. Which is why she still held the cachous in her hand, and she could not reach for her own throat, the choke was swiftly done.

Agree.
A sudden attack is unlikely attending main witnesses. Most probably the killer caught from the rear, while she was taking cachous and thinking about I don't know. She wasn't in alarm but quiet enough. That before they struggled. Few seconds but the murder has already planned to kill.
For this the murder pulled the scarf barring cries (if she was in feet or not when she cried, it doesn't care) and pushed her into the yard. He held the scarf, maybe she spinned around or stumbled in the irregular soil and so the killer, kept on holding the scarf, drove her falling. Not fast, quite slowly. The weight of Stride made the scarf knot very tight, almost chocking. Perhaps she involved him on fall and the killer directed himself (and Stride) toward to the next wall trying to stay in feet.
With the free hand (the right) now the killer takes a knife in his pocket and carves the neck from the opposite side planting the point and pulling when Stride is on her side.
Cachous in hand, knot very tight, no blood stains around and a death rapidly coming by choking (jugular cut).. but above all the murder was well determined to kill and wrongly Stride trusted in him.

[Tom_Wescott]

Scarf

Hi all,

I've fallen a little behind on the thread, but to reiterate about the scarf...Stride's would have been somewhat similar to (but not as fancy as) the one's Mike posted. A small scarf, not a long Tom Baker Dr. Who scarf that I believe some imagine (as evidenced by the recurring idea that she was dragged into the yard by the scarf). Also, it might be a mistake to assume that Stride tied her scarf in the back and it was her killer who moved the knot around. That may in fact have been exactly as she tied it. What we can all be certain about is that at the moment her throat was cut, the scarf was pulled from the right side of her neck, causing the scarf to pull tight against the left side of neck, as evidenced by the knife blade following the line of the scarf and nicking it in one place.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

Lynn,
I would think that pulling on just one end,would give very little control,but in the main I shy aw ay from e xplaining how she came to be in the position she was,because I just do not know.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

This is from the Irish Times dated Monday Oct 1st.

"Strong suspicion has fallen upon Jews and other foreigners, and the Socialists who have clubs in the East End. There is no definite ground for these surmises, and it is not fair to direct public anger against a class. But it is certainly in an especial way the duty of the Jews and Poles, and particularly of the members of the Socialist club to assist in every way in effecting a discovery. Until it has been made they cannot be perfectly free from a responsibility greater than belongs in those less connected with the spot and its lawlessness. There do appear to be peculiarities in the tale of one of the murders that point more closely to a possible revelation. The woman was not in the company of her assailant. She carried in one hand sweetmeats and in another grapes, as if she were on her way to her home. She was surprised, grasped and her throat severed by a fierce attack, and it is hardly possible that this could have been done without some stains having been made upon the murderer's clothes. The police also know well that the place has always had in it a number of the worst characters."

I find it interesting that the initial reaction,... (this was likely printed before Israels statement to the police Sunday night was made public),... was that the woman was alone when her killer met up with her, and that the club had better make sure that any suspicions upon themselves be deflected, due to their reputation before this event. In fact the article seems to suggest that Jews in general should be vigilant in clearing suspicions from one of their own.

The distinct lack of speculation concerning the reason for her being where she was at the time, to me, is refreshing. There is no rush to assume she was soliciting at the time, and some suggestion that she was not.

I guess at that point in time all they had was the existing evidence,... not the phantom witness Israel Schwartz, not Leon Goldstein, not even Mathew Packer. Funny how witness statements seem to alter what can be said is actually known about this murder and the circumstances.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

To Harry and Lynn,

I wonder if the fact that the "knot was twisted" gives us the answer, if it were knotted it might be simply a matter of grabbing the scarf from behind and pulling, but if it were a bow, then then twisting might allow some traction and keep the bow tightly in place without the knot,.... something that may also have occurred as she fell down and to her left.

Bridewell, on thread premise remarks are never "interruptions".

My explanation on my position regarding the alleged interruption is simply this....without any physical or circumstantial evidence to suggest that one occurred,.... pragmatically, I cannot see any value in adopting it as a possible or even plausible scenario. If a tree falls in a forest with no-one around, it does indeed make a sound nonetheless. Meaning...there is evidence of the occurrence.

The interruption theory was a creation of imagination that allowed the first and second murders to be linked,.. and to be explained. The escalation in injuries from Liz to Kate, and also from Annie to Kate, is what people use to explain the effects of that interruption on the killer.

What I concern myself with is the physical data and what I deem to be reliable and important witness statements. But ultimately Liz Strides murder is described in her death pose I think, and that pose to me doesnt suggest either prostitution or a struggle going on when she was grabbed and cut.

I believe this was just thug violence, and the murder was a knee jerk, likely drunken, reaction to something Liz said or did while waiting for someone in the club.....in the yard, where she is found.

Cheers

[Observer]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"If Jack were her killer, do you think that he gave any thought whatsoever as to the deepness of the cut? Her killer did what was needed to kill her."

Very well. But why the stark similarity in Polly and Annie? Same depth, same twin cuts. Looks like the assailant read from a script. Now, I am to suppose that everything else is just random and by the same chap?

Cheers.
LC

Again, study other serial offenders and the differing methods they employed when committing their crimes. As Tom Wescott indicates not as exciting and worthy of inclusion in a penny dreadful, but if we are to try and unravel the mind of JTR then surely the above is a more common sense course of action to take.

And lets not forget that Catherine Eddowes throat was cut twice, as were Polly Nichols, and Annie Chapman's.

[lynn cates]

2 points

Hello Harry. Two quick points.

1. Why would both tails be pulled? What is wrong with asserting that her assailant grabbed and caught one tail?

2. What kind of knot? If it were merely an overhand knot grabbing it would neither tighten nor loosen it.

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

I do not know of a bow,when referred to a scarf,tie,or kerchief,that will not unravel when both ends are pulled simultaneously,so i'll go with a knot,and I would argue they are different means of support.

[Observer]

Hello Colin. Thanks.

I would add a second prerequisite, a degree in logic.

Cheers.
LC

Considering the evidence we have available, it's logical to assume that the Fennians/Ochrana were involved in the murder of Liz Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Kelly ? Well I'll be.

As Colin Roberts suggests read the material available regarding the Yorkshire Ripper series of murders. To this day the police are uncertain as to how many women Sutcliffe assaulted. Several assaults committed by Sutcliffe were ruled out of the enquiry because the police were of the opinion that the assaults in question did not fit the pattern. In reality Sutcliffe had been disturbed during those assaults, thus the ferocity, and damage meted out to the victims were greatly reduced, resulting in the police assigning the attacks to another hand.

[lynn cates]

petitio principii

Hello Colin.

"Lack of evidence that there was an interruption cannot be construed as evidence that there wasn't"

Absolutely. But what I'm on about is, "Why bring up an interruption in the first place?"

And the answer is easily had.

1. Liz was killed by Jack.

2. Jack killed to mutilate.

3. Liz was not mutilated.

Therefore, he must have been interrupted.

The problem, I think, is with #1--seems a bit of a petitio principii to me.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Interruptions

There is no "evidence" that an interruption happened at all...there are opinions one did, but no evidence,

That's fine as far as it goes. I don't seek to quarrel with that - however:

While there is no evidence that there was an interruption, there is also no evidence that there wasn't. Lack of evidence that there was an interruption cannot be construed as evidence that there wasn't, any more than lack of evidence that there wasn't such an interruption can be taken as evidence that there was. The killer may, or may not, have been interrupted. It's an unknown surely?

Regards, Bridewell. (Apologies for the interruption)

[lynn cates]

listing

Hello Cris. Thanks.

If you were out on the farm, then I am truly envious.

Thanks for the listing. I must look for these.

I wonder, are you/they including the one with an alias? Not sure what the latest thought on that one is.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hello Cris.

"She had a record at Thames Magistrate Court for the previous 3 years that included being arrested for soliciting."

I have not seen this one--only the D & D's. Can you kindly point me to a link?

Hi Lynn,

Sorry for the tardy response. Am out at the farm this weekend. Both Neal Sheldon and Dave Yost cite the arrests in their books referencing the Thames Magistrate Court records. She apparently was arrested on 8 occasions for "drunk and disorderly" and on one the charge was "drunk and disorderly and soliciting."