Stride & Diemschutz

[Losmandris]

Same applies to whoever killed Stride - unless you believe it was suicide and she managed to throw the knife as far as Schwartz's railway arch before expiring.

If we think of where Stride was standing, and the time of night, it doesn't take much imagination to see why a man might jump to certain unsavoury conclusions about her, whether he ever used prostitutes - which I happen to think Jack did - or thoroughly disapproved of their presence in the area. I doubt most men's first thought would be that she had probably come to clean the club, or was waiting for her boyfriend to take her clubbing. They might have got her wrong, but then so might her killer.

A disgruntled punter could have killed her for rejecting his advances, wrongly perceiving her to be available, but once we allow for that reasonable possibility, it must surely follow that a disgruntled Jack could have done the same, and wrongly assumed she would agree to accompany him somewhere they were less likely to be disturbed.

If we didn't have the striking similarities between this case and the others, as described in the summing up at Stride's inquest, I'd be far more inclined to favour a disgruntled punter with a knife and a belly full of beer, teaching the woman a lesson she had no time to learn and he had no time to regret. But for me, the similarities make such a scenario - angry man, killing for the first and only time - considerably less likely than our active cut throat, using skills he had at his fingertips, and they can't simply be airbrushed out of the record.

Could not agree more with you Caz. This was not just any old throat cutting, this was do in a specific way for a specific purpose. I always think that if this was a domestic murder or murder by a disgruntled punter she would have been stabbed. There are just enough similarities to have me convinced this was the same man who killed the others. I think it would be a whole different kettle of fish if we had a murder similar to Tabram turn up in the middle of things but we don't we have a similar MO, just no follow up mutilations. I think if Stride had taken him or JtR had taken her to a quieter place, I think it would be a different story here, maybe Eddowes would not have ended up murdered?

[Losmandris]

Maybe she shook him off after their encounter at The Bricklayers Arms, only to have the misfortune of him finding her again an hour and half later? By which stage he may have taken a slight on his character to not have been allowed to get what he wanted from her.

She senses all is not right. On the wind is the music of the nearby socialist club. It sounds Russian. She tries to subtlety negotiate her way there, but he won’t leave her be. There might be just enough people around to scare him away. She doesn’t see anyone. She can hear the music clearly now. If only she could get to the club, she will feel much safer.

”It’s not Jack. They said he was a Jew!” she convinces herself. “He is just another pestering man on the street who cannot take no for an answer.”

She crosses the road at pace. The soft soles of her boots barely make a sound against the damp cobbles.

She is almost there. Too late.

This certainly sounds plausible to me.

Be of a flight of fantasy here but what if because she is being hassled she approaches BS man for help, he is not buying it so flings her to the ground. She then heads to the club to try and get help there. JtR is following her and worries that somehow she has worked out who he is, so decides to take her out in the yard, where she has fled to?

[Wickerman]

Check the length of streetwalkers skirts in historical records, part of the bait was that new shorter hem profile.

It would really help if you could post an image or a link to show what you mean. I thought it was widely understood in Victorian society that women cannot show any leg, unless on stage in a theatrical context.

[Michael W Richards]

Could not agree more with you Caz. This was not just any old throat cutting, this was do in a specific way for a specific purpose. I always think that if this was a domestic murder or murder by a disgruntled punter she would have been stabbed. There are just enough similarities to have me convinced this was the same man who killed the others. I think it would be a whole different kettle of fish if we had a murder similar to Tabram turn up in the middle of things but we don't we have a similar MO, just no follow up mutilations. I think if Stride had taken him or JtR had taken her to a quieter place, I think it would be a different story here, maybe Eddowes would not have ended up murdered?

It is pure speculation that this murder was linked with any other during the time and place these occur, and you seem ok with taking a simple, single cut throat wound and assuming the culprit was a killer who double cut all previous victims throats and extracted a uterus from one victim cleanly..."with no meaningless cuts".

Like assuming a man who can bend a paper clip is a highly skilled steelworker.

[Losmandris]

It is pure speculation that this murder was linked with any other during the time and place these occur, and you seem ok with taking a simple, single cut throat wound and assuming the culprit was a killer who double cut all previous victims throats and extracted a uterus from one victim cleanly..."with no meaningless cuts".

Like assuming a man who can bend a paper clip is a highly skilled steelworker.

Mmmmm. I don't think I agree with you there. This was a pretty specific approach even as throat slitting goes. Likely rendered unconscious first, laid on the floor and then throat cut. This was no domestic, whoever did had a very keen sense of what they were doing and in my eyes this is too similar to the others not to be done by the same hand. I think the double/single cut is irrelevant and think, with all due respect, if that is what you use to exclude Stride from the list, you are being way too blinkered.

[Wickerman]

I'm only guessing about the hat. It's just that the pair walked off toward Ellen street, and later came back from that direction, so who knows where they'd been?

I can see various ways of describing the same hat like as either wideawake or billycock, but when comparing a cap with a peak to a hat with an all-round brim, it seems such a stretch to me that one could be mistaken for the other.

One detail I came across not too long ago was that the wideawake was known in some circles as "a Yankee hat", precisely the words used by A.C.B. in his summary of Packer's statement.
All this time I thought he meant a western-style like cowboy hat, but it's just the American version of the Bowler - a Wideawake.
This makes Packer's suspect look more like PC Smith's suspect - hard felt hat, as he described in his first statement (not the deerstalker).

So the real issue is, who the board school couple are?
...

It's possible we have two other couples in Berner St.
The pair seem by Mortimer at the corner by the Board School may be different from the ones who spoke to the press.

Whereas Mortimer places them at the corner...
"A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."

The girl, when interviewed says:
From twelve o'clock till half-past a young girl who lives in the street walked up and down, and within twenty yards of where the body was found, with her sweetheart.

"We heard nothing whatever," she told a reporter this morning. "I passed the gate of the yard a few minutes before twelve o'clock alone. The doors were open, and, so far as I could tell, there was nothing inside then." "I met my young man (she proceeded) at the top of the street, and then we went for a short walk along the Commercial-road and back again, and down Berner-street. No one passed us then, but just before we said "Good night" a man came along the Commercial-road; and went in the direction of Aldgate."

I'm not convinced myself that they are two different couples, but Tom Wescott was of the opinion that they were, at the time we talked about it.
Something to consider I guess.

[c.d.]

There is absolutely no requirement that Stride had to have been actively soliciting that night in order to be a Ripper victim. She only had to interact with him one way or another.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

It would really help if you could post an image or a link to show what you mean. I thought it was widely understood in Victorian society that women cannot show any leg, unless on stage in a theatrical context.

Im trying to get a specific pic that describes what I mean, the hem length moved to below the knee exposing the shin to some extent, given as you say a striking contrast to the floor length skirts and soon to be popular bustles commonly worn by ladies about town. The ones that didnt have a wardrobe from a life before the streets or a marriage would acquire dress more suitable for attracting clients from pawn shops like used by Kate and Emily.

[Wickerman]

Maybe she shook him off after their encounter at The Bricklayers Arms, only to have the misfortune of him finding her again an hour and half later? By which stage he may have taken a slight on his character to not have been allowed to get what he wanted from her.

One question that concerned me was that if Stride was with the killer at the Bricklayer's, then why were they together for so long? Most people have assumed 'Jack' was a opportunistic killer, more spontaneous than a planner. He met Eddowes and killed her within the hour. Yet we don't know what Nichols or Chapman were doing in the last few hours before they were murdered.
You're scenario is another possibility.

I'm inclined to think the Smith suspect was the same man as Packer saw. PC Smith saw the two together about 12:35, then we hear no more about him. In my view they may have crossed the road and stood in the ally, partly in the dark.
BS-man staggered passed and recognises what is going on, he only spoke to Stride, maybe he accosted her "we don't want you're type around here", and casts her to the ground. The suspect steps back into the shadows, Schwartz quickly passes, his attention drawn by the fracas between BS-man & Stride, but doesn't see the suspect in the shadows.
Schwartz & BS-man leave, this is when the suspect kills Stride.

There's likely a dozen scenario's that we could think of, always assuming Stride was a Ripper victim to begin with.

[caz]

Check the length of streetwalkers skirts in historical records, part of the bait was that new shorter hem profile. Plus it makes for heavy lifting of the skirts from front or back. You speculate that she might have been given the flowers and cashous when you already have evidence that she left the lodginghouse with 6d and didnt have any money on her when found. She didnt drink it, and I believe their was no recent meal detected. But youd rather incorporate some unfounded speculation than follow the bread crumb trail there to your answer as to how she obtained these items.

Its that you reach all the time, your not content to try and make sense of whats there on the page so you imagine how far you can go to continue to propagate the mythology of Jack the Ripper that youve embraced.

How were my comments about Stride's appearance and possessions in any way related to who may or may not have killed her?

How could Stride's appearance or possessions tell you a damned thing about who may or may not have killed her? How do you know where her sixpence went?

Where have I ever argued that Stride was, or was not soliciting that night?

You are the one with the rigid thinking, who insists that the killer of Nichols and Chapman would have known, instinctively, that Stride was not soliciting or open to persuasion, and could therefore have had no possible interest in doing her harm.

You are the one who refuses to entertain the possibility that Eddowes went to a dark corner of Mitre Square with her killer in the hope of earning enough for breakfast and her next drink, with something left over to take back home with her.

My point here is that you can discard the fact that only the first 2 of the five alledged Canonical victims can be said to have met their killer as a result of what they were doing at that moment in time. But it may well be a key component for the killer of the first 2 women. Opportunistic. Trawling.

And it may well be that you are wrong, because there is precious little evidence to tell us either way. The evidence for how and why Stride, Eddowes and Kelly ended up in the clutches of their respective killer is missing from the jigsaw puzzle, but it's no good pretending those pieces never existed, when considering what the complete picture might have looked like. You appear to believe that the right way - and only way - to arrive at the true picture is to use only the few established facts we have, take them literally, and let them do all the talking. No allowances can be made in your world for the considerable gaps in our knowledge, which all have the potential to dramatically change that picture.

[caz]

It is pure speculation that this murder was linked with any other during the time and place these occur, and you seem ok with taking a simple, single cut throat wound and assuming the culprit was a killer who double cut all previous victims throats and extracted a uterus from one victim cleanly..."with no meaningless cuts".

Like assuming a man who can bend a paper clip is a highly skilled steelworker.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I didn't see the poster concerned 'assuming' things with anything like the certainty you display when assuming who didn't kill Stride.

Stride had no 'meaningless' cuts either, so right there is another similarity, indicating hers was not a typical domestic or revenge murder, where we might expect the killer to have inflicted further knife wounds, or other injuries while he was at it.

[c.d.]

It is pure speculation that this murder was linked with any other during the time and place these occur...

It is also pure speculation that it was not linked with any other no matter what arguments you bring to the table since no one actually knows for a fact.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

How were my comments about Stride's appearance and possessions in any way related to who may or may not have killed her?

Not sure what your asking here.

How could Stride's appearance or possessions tell you a damned thing about who may or may not have killed her? How do you know where her sixpence went?

Dont be intentionally ignorant, she leaves the lodginghouse with 6d, no flower, no cashous we know about. She is found with both those things and no 6d. This isnt brain surgery...but it does require one.

Where have I ever argued that Stride was, or was not soliciting that night?

And dont play demure either...youve many times over many years spouted your arguments that they all were soliciting, that they were streetwalkers and thats what they do. And in the process youve argued when Ive accused you of speculation on that issue.

You are the one with the rigid thinking, who insists that the killer of Nichols and Chapman would have known, instinctively, that Stride was not soliciting or open to persuasion, and could therefore have had no possible interest in doing her harm.

Why would he think she was soliciting if she didnt approach anyone for business? Thats what they did...they called out to passing men. Maybe her real killer did think that and was pissed of when she said no.

You are the one who refuses to entertain the possibility that Eddowes went to a dark corner of Mitre Square with her killer in the hope of earning enough for breakfast and her next drink, with something left over to take back home with her.

Yeah, I guess the fact she is doing this in the opposite direction of where her boyfriend and lodgings are is the basis for this argument? There is not one shred of evidence in that case either that she was soliciting. But thats never stopped you.....


And it may well be that you are wrong, because there is precious little evidence to tell us either way. The evidence for how and why Stride, Eddowes and Kelly ended up in the clutches of their respective killer is missing from the jigsaw puzzle, but it's no good pretending those pieces never existed, when considering what the complete picture might have looked like. You appear to believe that the right way - and only way - to arrive at the true picture is to use only the few established facts we have, take them literally, and let them do all the talking. No allowances can be made in your world for the considerable gaps in our knowledge, which all have the potential to dramatically change that picture.

Its not like missing pieces in a jigsaw at all, its only that way for you because you look at these things with a view that they all must be connected. Thats false. They do not have to be, no matter how much you want them to be. And the evidence is some cases says they are not anyway.

Stop wandering across threads looking at every post as something that supports your thesis or doesnt. Your thesis, that these murders of women..., some of which regularly worked as prostitutes....and thats just 2 of the five by the known facts....all were done by one man is almost certainly wrong. No-one has ever made a case for those connections based on the actual evidence as it exists, and the physical and circumstantial details are not all similar.

Like Strides single cut while dressed in "her good evening wear", as her lodgemate said,... with a new flower and new cashous and less the 6d she had when she went out that night. No evidence she was soliciting, no evidence any further injuries were either desired by her killer, begun and halted, or even intended.

That doesnt describe the third victim of a killer who killed drunk or sickly working prostitutes so he could then mutilate their abdomens. That describes Liz Strides circumstances...which have nothing to do with any Jack. Despite your beliefs.

[c.d.]

Your thesis, that these murders of women..., some of which regularly worked as prostitutes....and thats just 2 of the five by the known facts....all were done by one man is almost certainly wrong.

"Almost certainly?" Well damn. Who'd have thunk it? I'm glad we got that settled.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Your thesis, that these murders of women..., some of which regularly worked as prostitutes....and thats just 2 of the five by the known facts....all were done by one man is almost certainly wrong.

"Almost certainly?" Well damn. Who'd have thunk it? I'm glad we got that settled.

c.d.

Has somebody disproven that statement? Did these get solved and proven to be all by one man since I just had a cig outside?

Well that only took 130 plus years.....finally linked all five to one guy huh? Whodathunkit. Was it Ripper van Winkle?

You guys....herlock, caz, cd, all know that if and when any evidence comes out that validates my contentions I will loudly out you all for the resistance youve given to something that in practical terms makes the most sense anyway.

Ive endured a lot of crap from you folks over the years, and comments you wouldnt dare make to my face, so I am looking forward to seeing the facial egging you can expect.