Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stride & Diemschutz

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Its entirely possible that someone might have mistaken Stride being out that night her soliciting, and although there is no evidence she was in fact soliciting, she could have been. Its the circumstances that tell us anything about why she was there. If you assemble the pieces youd have to conclude that there were no witnesses who saw her go off somewhere private with any man, though she spoke with some. She was sober, appointed nicely with a flower arrangement. That she acquired after leaving the boarding house with her 6d, she did not have it on when first leaving. She had something to freshen her mouth. A skirt that went down to her boot tops, one she wanted to brush any lint from.

    It would seem as cd conceded earlier that she may well have been there to meet someone, or to clean, as she was doing in previous weeks "among the jews".

    The discussion that the fact that the first 2 acknowledged they were soliciting...(again, not in the evidence of any other alleged Canonical investigation), might not be relevant to the killer leads down I believe a dead end road. The fact that the man preyed out late at night, that the women he would see were homeless or soliciting is all well and good, but lets not forget these crimes were very quiet overall. The fact that he gets the woman to accompany him to dark places suggests strongly that she did so on economic grounds, even while her kind were being murdered in that neighbourhood. After the 2 murders in late Aug-early Sept the streets would have been on edge at night for street women. Only the ones that had to still walked the streets.

    On that last point, do we have any evidence that says Liz had to work that night? Seems to me she thought she might stay elsewhere that night.. not just come back to the lodging house at daylight. She couldnt even estimate when she would in fact return. Or IF for that matter.

    That last line sparked a thought....since she didnt know when, or if, she would return, did she have reason to suspect she might meet with trouble? Never considered that before actually...but an interesting tangent.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    **** knows mate, that's why it's an unsolved case. When did he enter and leave, unseen? Again, I don't know, but he obviously did, hence the dead body.
    Sometimes it's hard to tell what someone means by 'Jack' - is it just a placeholder, or something more specific?
    Whatever the case, Jack still has to be woven into a timeline, while making at least some sense of witness accounts.

    I thought it was a bundle of Arbiters Freint?
    That idea looked good to me initially, but have long since moved on …

    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...823#post734823

    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...583#post747583

    That x-ray in the first post is obviously not of a parcel or paper bag. However, looking something like the bag Leon Goldstein was carrying when he snuck out of Dutfield's Yard, which subsequently ended up in a lodging room at 22 Batty Street, it is nonetheless totally appropriate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    I am more and more of the opinion that Stride turned out to be the wrong type of victim as it were for JtR, hence the throat cutting and no mutilation. Maybe she was not soliciting and took umbrage at being propositioned or just did not quite fit as the type of person he was after (put off by some personal trait?). She ends up more trouble that she was worth, so to avoid identification or some kind of ruckus, he quickly kills her and moves on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    I'm confused. Who's this Jack person? Is it the man holding the parcel wrapped in newspaper? When does this Jack enter the scene, and when does he leave it, apparently unseen?
    **** knows mate, that's why it's an unsolved case. When did he enter and leave, unseen? Again, I don't know, but he obviously did, hence the dead body.

    I thought it was a bundle of Arbiters Freint?

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    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?
    No, context isn't irrelevant, but Strides motives were not necessarily relevant to her killer. It depends whether you believe she had to be soliciting to be a victim.

    If it was possible to ascertain who she arrived with, as in actually, not in theory, then yes, that would be very relevant.

    It's an argument against the idea that she had to be an active prostitute to be a victim. She didn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Gee I wish I had those answers but unfortunately I don't. But I too am confused. If it wasn't Jack just who was her killer and what was his motive?

    c.d.

    P.S. Try to give the sarcasm a rest.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post

    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.
    I'm confused. Who's this Jack person? Is it the man holding the parcel wrapped in newspaper? When does this Jack enter the scene, and when does he leave it, apparently unseen?

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Hello Michael,

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

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 05-10-2021, 05:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    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.”"

    ​​​​​

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X