Stride & Diemschutz

[caz]

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.

You really don't know me too well, if you think I wouldn't dare to say to your face everything I have ever put in a post.

I'm looking forward to you trying to 'loudly' out us all, if the cigs haven't damaged your vocal cords by the time 'any evidence' comes out that validates your contentions. Good of you to finally admit in the meantime that your contentions to date have all been based on fresh air. That certainly validates one of my own contentions.

[caz]

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.

The above quote was your response to my question: Where have I ever argued that Stride was, or was not soliciting that night?

If you can find any post of mine from the last two decades, where I have insisted that 'they all' [whatever you mean by that] were actively soliciting when they met their killer, because 'they were streetwalkers' and that's what they did, I'll be very surprised. I have always kept an open mind about Stride, because the evidence does not allow for a hard and fast conclusion either way. But a man was heard to tell her: "You'd say anything but your prayers", and she was heard to tell a man: "Not tonight, maybe another night", which suggests she was okay with a bit of banter and flirting, but might have had no intention of going further with anyone she met that night. She had her sixpence, jolly jolly sixpence, so if she could afford to blow it all on a flower and a packet of cachous, I don't suppose she was desperate to service the first grubby chap who offered to make it worth her while.

In fact, none of the victims - including Nichols and Chapman - need have solicited the man who killed them. He may have made the approaches himself, selecting women he assumed were not on their way to church, or appeared drunk, sick or desperate enough to put up little resistance. Even if a victim had no intention of going anywhere with her killer, could she have afforded to turn him down if he was offering considerably more than the going rate?

There is no evidence that tiny little Eddowes went into that dark corner of Mitre Square with her killer, thinking she'd be able to blackmail him there and come out of it alive and well and in the money. And I can't immediately think of a plausible reason why she'd have accompanied a stranger there, if she was not expecting him to want something from her. What did she think he wanted? Travel scrabble and a picnic?

Mary Kelly may have been entertaining Blotchy in her hovel purely for the pleasure of his company. But then again, the man was flesh and blood, so what did she imagine he might have been expecting, in return for sharing his ale with her and treating her to a fish supper? "I appreciate a shag is out of the question love, so yes, another hour of warbling on about violets will do nicely."

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.

Well, you clearly know more about the procedure than I do. But you will have to explain to me why the man who killed Nichols and Chapman wouldn't think Stride was soliciting, unless she approached or called out to him, but anyone else may have thought she was - presumably from her demeanor - and cut her throat because she said no, when he had fully expected a yes, based on previous experiences with working prostitutes. If this isn't your bias showing, I don't know what else to make of this astounding piece of logic.

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.

The cachous may have been 'new', but you have no evidence for this, nor for how much the flower and cachous might have cost. You are guessing that it was Stride who blew a whole sixpence on both items, to make herself more attractive to the man she was hoping would replace Michael Kidney. You may be right, but you can't prove any of this, so it gets us nowhere. Who would know that she didn't already have the cachous in a pocket when she set out that evening? You are guessing she didn't because nobody reported seeing them earlier. But why would they? Nobody reported selling her the flower or cachous either, yet you are certain she must have bought both that evening with her sixpence.

No evidence Stride was soliciting, but you have just admitted that her killer - if he was a disgruntled punter - may have thought she was! No evidence that her killer would have been safe to do more in that location than what he did, regardless of who he was or what he thought she was doing there. A punter who felt cheated might reasonably have wanted to beat her up, rob her or rape her, in addition to cutting her throat, but he'd have run the same risk of discovery as the killer who wanted to mutilate as well as murder a woman that night. Whoever decided to kill Stride wasn't going to fanny around at the scene, taking whatever issues he had out on her.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

In other words, you're saying the comparison in #52 is not close enough to be considered the same man, because of a different type of hat? Seriously? James Brown couldn't recall if the man he saw was wearing a hat or cap at all, let alone what type it was. Do we therefore dismiss Brown as an unreliable witness?
I think you're grossly overestimating the ability of witnesses to accurately record and recall details. The vagaries of eyewitness accounts are well documented.

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).

The vagaries of eyewitness accounts! Yet are you so sure these do not refer to the same thing...?

Circulated description: hard felt hat
Smith at inquest: He wore a dark felt deerstalker's hat.

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.

Clearly there were two couples - an earlier one and a later one. The earlier couple departed company around 12:30. I refer to this couple in #57 as the early sweetheart couple, in the Echo. The later couple spoke to Fanny. I think it possible James Brown saw both this couple, and Stride with companion, and conflated the two sightings.

I take it you noticed the potentially huge implications, if I'm right about the timing I argued for in #57?

[Fiver]

There are 20-30 men at the location she is killed at at the time she is killed. How many men did it take to kill Liz? The only place you need to look for her killer is among those men who were already there, but unseen from the street.

No one saw Annie Chapman's killer enter the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. Does that mean Chapman's killer must have lived at 29 Hanbury Street?

And you continue to ignore that "On the left side of the yard is a house, which is divided into three tenements, and occupied, I believe, by that number of families. At the end is a store or workshop belonging to Messrs. Hindley and Co., sack manufacturers."

The police didn't.

"A thorough search was made by the police of the yard and the houses in it, but no trace could be found of any person who might have committed the murder. As soon as the search was over the whole of the persons who had come into the yard and the members of the club were interrogated, their names and addresses taken, their pockets searched by the police, and their clothes and hands examined by the doctors. The people were twenty-eight in number. Each was dealt with separately, and they properly accounted for themselves. The houses were inspected a second time and the occupants examined and their rooms searched. A loft close by was searched, but no trace could be found of the murderer."

[erobitha]

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.

I find it quite apt you have Stockholm syndrome with your theory Michael.

The incidence of murder was not as high as some would like to believe during 1888. Whitechapel actually skewed the national figures for murder across the whole of Wales & England.

The cut on Stride was not meaningless. This was no affair of anger or passion. It was clinical. The two cuts reference is meaningless. The second cut on Nichols was the one that killed her. The first cut was a practice run. On Chapman he was still not perfect in rendering his victim totally helpless as he incapacitated them. She made a “no” noise. Yes he got her uterus but what the heck did he want with two thirds of a bladder?

The exact some method of rendering his victim incapacitated, and then proceeding to clinically slit the left carotid artery was his hallmark for killing his victims. On Liz he even trailed the knife superficially across the neck and downwards for typical effect. An hour later and the same method for murder was performed on Eddowes.

He may not have been able to execute his favourite pastime on Stride, but his method to murder did not change from Nichol to Chapman to Stride to Eddowes to Kelly. His confidence escalated. By the time he got to Kelly he had reached his “peak”.

Your theory has you hostage and you just won’t hear anything to the contrary. The evidence as it stands has not made sense for 130 years.

[c.d.]

Just for the record, Michael if you weren't so damn condescending and snarky all the time you wouldn't get the responses that you get. And just for the record, anything that I have ever directed your way I would have no problem saying to your face. If you think you have eggs in your arsenal, let them fly.

c.d.

[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?

I am not aware that it has been proven that they were they were the work of separate killers. I was just now doing my laundry. Maybe I missed it.

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.

[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]

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.]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.