Stride & Diemschutz

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it’s not.

[Damaso Marte]

It is also possible that the Ripper killed Stride and then decided not to mutilate her for reasons other than being interrupted. Perhaps the double event was entirely premeditated and the Ripper decided that mutilating the first victim would be unnecessary. Perhaps something other than the approach of another person made the Ripper think "nah". It is not interruption or not Ripper, there are other possibilities.

[Michael W Richards]

It is also possible that the Ripper killed Stride and then decided not to mutilate her for reasons other than being interrupted. Perhaps the double event was entirely premeditated and the Ripper decided that mutilating the first victim would be unnecessary. Perhaps something other than the approach of another person made the Ripper think "nah". It is not interruption or not Ripper, there are other possibilities.

The issue with that kind of logic is that it ignores what we learned to that point about the killer at large. So not only are you contemplating a change in his MO and savagery but also the very reason he killed previous women. The reason that the man who examined Annie stated. That the whole operation was to obtain the organ he eventually took. Based on that observation the murder itself is just an initial step, not the final one. All you have in apparent motivation in Berner Street is a demonstrated wish to inflict a single mortal wound. The man that killed Polly then Annie had an agenda beyond killing. The man that killed Stride killed Stride.

The victim information the hours prior to the murder does not match the priors, the physical evidence doesnt match, and the lack of the motive beyond murder sort of clinches the matter. The man who killed Polly then Annie had to do what he was doing, he had to act out these things and took great risks while doing so. That kind of killer does not abandon the core motivation for doing this in the first place. Its his Reason. Its his Signature.

And to my eye the only other Canonical who may have that same Core present is Kate.

[Damaso Marte]

In the museum in Florence where Michaelangelo's David is displayed, the hall that leads the visitor to David is lined with incomplete sculptures by Michaelangelo. Some are nearly complete, some are just big chunks of marble where you can barely see the start of a human shape. Michaelangelo always intended to sculpt something, but sometimes something got in the way. Sometimes, of course, it was an interruption: maybe a new commission came in, or maybe there was another family or personal obligation to attend to. Sometimes, I'm sure, it was because he was unsatisfied with his initial few hours of chiseling and decided to restart entirely with new marble.

[caz]

The issue with that kind of logic is that it ignores what we learned to that point about the killer at large. So not only are you contemplating a change in his MO and savagery but also the very reason he killed previous women. The reason that the man who examined Annie stated. That the whole operation was to obtain the organ he eventually took. Based on that observation the murder itself is just an initial step, not the final one. All you have in apparent motivation in Berner Street is a demonstrated wish to inflict a single mortal wound. The man that killed Polly then Annie had an agenda beyond killing. The man that killed Stride killed Stride.

The victim information the hours prior to the murder does not match the priors, the physical evidence doesnt match, and the lack of the motive beyond murder sort of clinches the matter. The man who killed Polly then Annie had to do what he was doing, he had to act out these things and took great risks while doing so. That kind of killer does not abandon the core motivation for doing this in the first place. Its his Reason. Its his Signature.

And to my eye the only other Canonical who may have that same Core present is Kate.

The issue with your brand of logic is that it completely ignores the relevant part of the report on the final day of Stride's inquest, which appeared in The Times of 24th October 1888, and included the following observations:

'In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. 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; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful.'

Even if it was concluded that 'the whole operation' in Chapman's case was to obtain the organ that was taken, this clearly had no effect on the reasoning in Stride's case. It was concluded - and without Schwartz's influence - that this could very well have been 'another' murder of a defenceless street woman by the same man, who was prevented by the circumstances from doing any more than cutting her throat and getting safely away.

[Michael W Richards]

The issue with your brand of logic is that it completely ignores the relevant part of the report on the final day of Stride's inquest, which appeared in The Times of 24th October 1888, and included the following observations:

'In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. 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; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful.'

Even if it was concluded that 'the whole operation' in Chapman's case was to obtain the organ that was taken, this clearly had no effect on the reasoning in Stride's case. It was concluded - and without Schwartz's influence - that this could very well have been 'another' murder of a defenceless street woman by the same man, who was prevented by the circumstances from doing any more than cutting her throat and getting safely away.

The line I highlighted above, that seem right to you? What the medical examiners actually concluded is the opposite, that there WAS knife skills evident in the cases of Polly and Annie..and as we know there are opinions on both sides of the fence with Kate. The "injuries" on Liz referred to amounted to a single throat cut, which neither Polly, Annie or Kate suffered. They all had double cuts. We also have evidence both prior victims confided to others the night they were killed that they were soliciting. Is there evience in Liz Strides case that was her situation that night? Flowers, cashous, boot top length skirt...sober.......

What youve said before is that these women were all part time prostitutes....but were they? And even if you could prove that...which you cant by the way...youd still have to prove that was Strides story that night.

Unless youre claiming that not only does he alter his whole methodology this night, but he also doesnt seek out the same kind of women who allow him to get them into the dark by virtue of their occupation at that moment.

Why not take a pragmatic approach, just use what evidence is there for that one murder, and stop inserting your ideas of how much this killer must have changed in order to have this fit and established pattern of behavior and victimology.

Why would Annies killer change anything? He apparently got what he was after, from whom he chose, and escaped scott free. Now he just wants a single cut...on a woman we have no proof was doing the same thing as Annie was when they met?

One question keeps coming up here caz...why do we have to imagine a previous killer when Strides kill is essentially nothing like the priors. Or subsequent victims for that matter.

Pretending only this Jack guy cuts throats at this time in that area is provably wrong anyway.

[c.d.]

What youve said before is that these women were all part time prostitutes....but were they? And even if you could prove that...which you cant by the way...youd still have to prove that was Strides story that night.

No you don't, Michael and this has been pointed out to you countless times. Whether Stride was soliciting or not that night is a moot point. Even if she was not actively soliciting that night we have no way of knowing her response if approached and offered money for her services.

So please drop that argument. It is easily refutable.

c.d.

[Joshua Rogan]

What youve said before is that these women were all part time prostitutes....but were they? And even if you could prove that...which you cant by the way...youd still have to prove that was Strides story that night.

No you don't, Michael and this has been pointed out to you countless times. Whether Stride was soliciting or not that night is a moot point. Even if she was not actively soliciting that night we have no way of knowing her response if approached and offered money for her services.

So please drop that argument. It is easily refutable.

c.d.

One newspaper piece, about a woman briefly thought to be the Pinchin Street victim;

"She was quite a respectable woman, they all told us – a most respect’ble body; but when she had a bit o’ drink inside her – well, no doubt she might have gone along of “Jack” then. Indeed, everyone seemed to have only two ideas on the subject: first, that another murder was the most natural thing in the world; and secondly, that it would also have been the most natural thing in the world to have “gone along of Jack.”"

[Michael W Richards]

What youve said before is that these women were all part time prostitutes....but were they? And even if you could prove that...which you cant by the way...youd still have to prove that was Strides story that night.

No you don't, Michael and this has been pointed out to you countless times. Whether Stride was soliciting or not that night is a moot point. Even if she was not actively soliciting that night we have no way of knowing her response if approached and offered money for her services.

So please drop that argument. It is easily refutable.

c.d.

You either dont read the post you disparage or you do so selectively. The fact that the 2 women were both actively soliciting by their own admission and NONE of the other Canonicals murders have that evidence, makes that fact very relevant. Easily refutable indeed. Its part of his irrefutable MO built by the first 2 encounterscd.... until that night if you believe its the same fella.

The fact that working prostitutes job is to pick up strangers and then take them alone into the dark is for obvious reasons very advantageous to the killer. That you would have him suddenly discard his own preferences for no known reason is what is easy to refute.

And please dont add another unfounded and spurious idea that someone offered her money for sex...there is not one shred of evidence for that, and since youve been reminded that there is also not one shred of evidence for any interruption, you should be getting the hang of within the evidence vs purely speculative by now.

Stop suggesting things that have no merit within the evidence...then maybe youll finally see the crime for what it was. A murder, and in no way or shape, a ripping.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

If Jack were her killer please explain how he would know that she was not soliciting.

c.d.

[Fiver]

The line I highlighted above, that seem right to you? What the medical examiners actually concluded is the opposite, that there WAS knife skills evident in the cases of Polly and Annie..and as we know there are opinions on both sides of the fence with Kate. The "injuries" on Liz referred to amounted to a single throat cut, which neither Polly, Annie or Kate suffered. They all had double cuts.

The section you highlighted about "skilful mutilation" is not referring to the skill used in cutting Elizabeth's Stride's throat, it is referring to the fact that that Stride's body was not mutilated like those of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. It does say that "the same skill" was shown in "the injuries inflicted" on Stride - the only injuries inflicted on Stride were cutting her throat "so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator".

It's also the conclusion of the Coroner, not of the men who examined the body.

"In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. 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; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful."

The Coroner noted both similarity and differences to the other killings. The similarity is the throat being cut "so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator". The difference is that Stride's body was not mutilated.

The Coroner also concluded that Eddowes death was "possibly the work of an imitator" - concluding her mutilation was "unskilful" as opposed to the "skilful mutilation" of Nichols and Chapman's bodies.

One of the medical examiners does agree with you about Stride's neck wound. When asked to compare the Chapman and Stride killings, Dr Phillips said "There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones."

Dr. Blackwell doesn't seem to have compared the Stride killing to the other killings.

[JeffHamm]

You either dont read the post you disparage or you do so selectively. The fact that the 2 women were both actively soliciting by their own admission and NONE of the other Canonicals murders have that evidence, makes that fact very relevant. Easily refutable indeed. Its part of his irrefutable MO built by the first 2 encounterscd.... until that night if you believe its the same fella.

The fact that working prostitutes job is to pick up strangers and then take them alone into the dark is for obvious reasons very advantageous to the killer. That you would have him suddenly discard his own preferences for no known reason is what is easy to refute.

And please dont add another unfounded and spurious idea that someone offered her money for sex...there is not one shred of evidence for that, and since youve been reminded that there is also not one shred of evidence for any interruption, you should be getting the hang of within the evidence vs purely speculative by now.

Stop suggesting things that have no merit within the evidence...then maybe youll finally see the crime for what it was. A murder, and in no way or shape, a ripping.

Notwithstanding the arguments in support of solicitation that have been raised in the past concerning Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly, the assumption that JtR was specifically targeting prostitutes simply because Nichols and Chapman were known to be out seeking clients is not entirely without question. That assumption was one of the examples of tunnel vision that hindered the capture of Peter Sutcliff in the Yorkshire Ripper case, and the police dismissed victims who were not prostitutes. They even went so far as to suggest it was the Y.R. who had made a mistake when one undeniable Y.R. victim (a 15 year old) was killed.

Given the hours JtR was on the hunt, the fact that his victims tended to be prostitutes might only reflect the fact that they are more commonly found at that time of night. We have no idea if JtR would have just as willingly killed and mutilated a woman who was not a prostitute if he had the chance. So, arguing that X cannot be a victim of JtR because we don't know if she was engaged in soliciting doesn't work - it might simply reflect that the common assumption JtR was targeting prostitutes specifically is incorrect.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hello Michael,

If Jack were her killer please explain how he would know that she was not soliciting.

c.d.

Hi C.D,

As you earlier said, it's a moot point.
Stride could have been out collecting for a convent, dodging the rain or ducking into the shadows to avoid Mormons. Her intentions are secondary to whatever her killer perceived her intentions to be. She was a lone woman in a vulnerable position. That's all she was guilty of that night.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi C.D,

As you earlier said, it's a moot point.
Stride could have been out collecting for a convent, dodging the rain or ducking into the shadows to avoid Mormons. Her intentions are secondary to whatever her killer perceived her intentions to be. She was a lone woman in a vulnerable position. That's all she was guilty of that night.

So how Stride came to be at the gateway of Dutfield's Yard, and who she came with, need not concern us? Context is irrelevant?

[c.d.]

So how Stride came to be at the gateway of Dutfield's Yard, and who she came with, need not concern us? Context is irrelevant?

The problem is that we simply don't know how she came to be there. Could it have been for a non-solicitation reason such as a date or working at the club? Absolutely. The key is that Jack would have no way of knowing that. Could he have seen her standing by herself late at night and determined that she was there on a date or thought hmmm that woman just clearly got done working. He could only know these things if he approached her. And even if she said hey I am not interested in a business proposition of sex for money what if he upped the ante? This was a woman who had just left the man she was living with and apparently had a drinking problem. Would she have turned down that offer? We simply don't know. So why she was there originally is pretty much a moot point.

c.d.