Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why No Stride Mutilations ?

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

  • Why No Stride Mutilations ?

    Schwartz statement claims, [and its been done to death as to its accuracy so i need not go there] he saw B.S Man attack Stride and pull her to the ground at 12.45am if we leave a 2-3 minute say to 12.48am for her murder , [if B.S is the killer] why didnt he mutilate her the same way he did Eddowes ?

    Eddowes injuries were all over and done with in less than 5-7 minutes ,so with 10-12 mins before Diemschutz drove his cart into the yard ,and the killer had know way of knowing that Diemschutz would do this , there was ample time for mutilations to take place .

    Dr Blackwell . ''I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m''[Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived

    So if B.S man isnt Jack the Ripper and he just assaulted Stride and left [as some would claim it was a Domestic Incident ] then someone else would then have to step up after B.S, Schwartz, and Pipeman had moved on. As some would claim a '' Mysteryious Phantom'' Lurking/watching the whole event unfold in the shadows ready to strike once they left .

    Now the Phantom Lurker aka JtR has to get to Stride in a matter of minutes to kill her before 12.50am still leaving time for a series of mutilations , which going agaisnt his M.O he decline to demonstrate before the discovery of Strides body at 1.00am by
    Diemschutz [ Note Diemschutz words ''Exactly'' 1.00am]

    My conclusion/opinion B.S man killed Stride but wasnt Jack the Ripper , and JtR did not enter the yard to kill Stride after B.S left the scene.
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

  • #2
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    Dr Blackwell . ''I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m''[Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived
    Hi Fishy,

    Blackwell's statement regarding time that you show is the report of the inquest by the Daily Telegraph. In other publications it was reported differently - Morning Advertiser 3 Oct: I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, or at the most half an hour when I saw her. Dr's time of death was at best an estimate

    In 1888 clock times were not synchronised and could easily be at variance by 10 minutes or more, despite their being quoted as "exactly". There were three men known to have been in Stride's immediate vicinity around the time of her death - BSMan, Pipeman and Parcelman, plus men in the club. The police at the time thought that the killer had been interrupted by Diemshitz but it could just as well been by approaching voices in the club kitchen.

    No-one knows what happened between the Schwartz sighting and the Diemshitz discovery, so your conjecture is a good as anyone's.

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 05-29-2022, 01:19 PM.
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

    Comment


    • #3
      Regardless of whether Jack was BS man or not, I just think that the location of Berner St was a riskier proposition than that of Mitre Square.

      He would have been aware that any of the club members could pop outside at any moment.

      Perhaps a noise from inside the club spooked him and he thought better of getting down to the mutilations.

      Pure speculation of course, but that's really all we can do!

      Re BS man as Jack, I'm on the fence (as usual!!), but on balance I'm slightly inclined to agree with you.

      ​​​​​​​

      Comment


      • #4
        All based on a testimony of a man who has never been proven to exist.

        No record exists of Israel Schwartz. The man who walked into give his statement to Abberline giving this name cannot be found in any record. Yet somehow a journalist in The Star found him (and his interpreter was home as well which was a tad fortunate). Swanson didn't have the right address. Who really was he and why should we believe him if we can't even find him? How do we know this is not a false statement?

        I will say it again. Take Israel Schwartz out of the equation with all the things he supposedly saw and the timings. Then see how the scene plays out - it makes much more sense.
        Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
        JayHartley.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Fishy,

          Blackwell's statement regarding time that you show is the report of the inquest by the Daily Telegraph. In other publications it was reported differently - Morning Advertiser 3 Oct: I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, or at the most half an hour when I saw her. Dr's time of death was at best an estimate

          In 1888 clock times were not synchronised and could easily be at variance by 10 minutes or more, despite their being quoted as "exactly". There were three men known to have been in Stride's immediate vicinity around the time of her death - BSMan, Pipeman and Parcelman, plus men in the club. The police at the time thought that the killer had been interrupted by Diemshitz but it could just as well been by approaching voices in the club kitchen.

          No-one knows what happened between the Schwartz sighting and the Diemshitz discovery, so your conjecture is a good as anyone's.

          Cheers, George
          Hi George , In strides case i think the time factor isnt such a big issue for obvious reasons, she was seen alive at 12.45 and found dead at 1.00. Im fairly sure Dr Blackwell got it right with his testimony at the inquest , bedsides if you use the argument with 'Times '' [esp being 10 mins out either side] in all the murders then youd have a different set of witness statements all together.

          However your second point beckons another question , being that Diemschutz did in fact discover the the body at 1.00 am we have to assume that no one else went into the yard to either see the murder taking place or discover the body ,so if the killer thought that he would be disturbed or heard some noise of some sort that spooked him and decided to run, Why did he not run during the Chapman murder when Cadousch came out of his house, and all the residents who lived at no 29 Hanbury st that may have at anytime come out to start their day or use the Loo at 5.30 5.45 when it was gettin into if not already daylight hour . ? Of course we may never know the reason why he did what he did ,but after Hanbury st , Berner st would surley have been a walk in the park .

          I just dont think Strides murder was a JtR kill , i think B.M man quickly cut her throat and took off very fast... straight away. .

          Just a foot note on B.S man , if his intention was all along to kill Stride , why was he trying to drag her into the street in front of two witnesses ??? Even better, if he was the Ripper where was he trying to take to her ?????? B.S man makes no sense as Jack the Ripper, but as sure as eggs he killed Stride.
          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
            Regardless of whether Jack was BS man or not, I just think that the location of Berner St was a riskier proposition than that of Mitre Square.

            He would have been aware that any of the club members could pop outside at any moment.

            Perhaps a noise from inside the club spooked him and he thought better of getting down to the mutilations.

            Pure speculation of course, but that's really all we can do!

            Re BS man as Jack, I'm on the fence (as usual!!), but on balance I'm slightly inclined to agree with you.

            ​​​​​​​
            Thanks for that Mrs D , one might say Berner st , Mitre Square , Hanbury st, were indeen all very risky
            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by erobitha View Post
              All based on a testimony of a man who has never been proven to exist.

              No record exists of Israel Schwartz. The man who walked into give his statement to Abberline giving this name cannot be found in any record. Yet somehow a journalist in The Star found him (and his interpreter was home as well which was a tad fortunate). Swanson didn't have the right address. Who really was he and why should we believe him if we can't even find him? How do we know this is not a false statement?

              I will say it again. Take Israel Schwartz out of the equation with all the things he supposedly saw and the timings. Then see how the scene plays out - it makes much more sense.
              I think we should use whats available to us that has been documented and thats on offical record , instead of venturing into the realmes of the ''Twilight Zone'' with people who may or may not have existed .

              Theres already way to much of that type of thinking going around here with phantom Organ Harvesting Goules and authors suggesting that Jack the Ripper was some sort of myth and never existed at all . !!!!!!! , now we have witnesses that are starting to disappear as well , gosh where will it all end .
              Last edited by FISHY1118; 05-30-2022, 02:46 AM.
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • #8
                So do you believe that BS man dragged Stride into the yard and strangled her and cut her throat on the ground where she was found?
                Best Regards,

                Tristan

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
                  So do you believe that BS man dragged Stride into the yard and strangled her and cut her throat on the ground where she was found?
                  Was Stride even strangled, though?

                  M.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                    Hi George , In strides case i think the time factor isnt such a big issue for obvious reasons, she was seen alive at 12.45 and found dead at 1.00. Im fairly sure Dr Blackwell got it right with his testimony at the inquest , bedsides if you use the argument with 'Times '' [esp being 10 mins out either side] in all the murders then youd have a different set of witness statements all together.

                    However your second point beckons another question , being that Diemschutz did in fact discover the the body at 1.00 am we have to assume that no one else went into the yard to either see the murder taking place or discover the body ,so if the killer thought that he would be disturbed or heard some noise of some sort that spooked him and decided to run, Why did he not run during the Chapman murder when Cadousch came out of his house, and all the residents who lived at no 29 Hanbury st that may have at anytime come out to start their day or use the Loo at 5.30 5.45 when it was gettin into if not already daylight hour . ? Of course we may never know the reason why he did what he did ,but after Hanbury st , Berner st would surley have been a walk in the park .

                    I just dont think Strides murder was a JtR kill , i think B.M man quickly cut her throat and took off very fast... straight away. .

                    Just a foot note on B.S man , if his intention was all along to kill Stride , why was he trying to drag her into the street in front of two witnesses ??? Even better, if he was the Ripper where was he trying to take to her ?????? B.S man makes no sense as Jack the Ripper, but as sure as eggs he killed Stride.
                    Alcohol might have some part in it.

                    Its not what JtR would have done.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                      Was Stride even strangled, though?

                      M.
                      from Scott Hannaford:

                      Whilst so many officers believed that Stride was a victim of Jack The Ripper, Dr Phillips provided information to the contrary. He stated that there was a great dissimilarity between the deaths of Stride and Chapman. Unlike Chapman Stride had not been strangled prior to having her throat cut. Furthermore a long knife had been used to murder Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly whilst a short round knife had killed Stride.

                      These are really two minor indiscrepancies which could be explained by a change in MO. However there is one major point that can not be changed which almost certainly proves that Stride's killer was not Jack the Ripper. It is quite clear that the police believed Jack the Ripper to be LEFT HANDED, and this is clearly correct, yet by looking at the autopsy/inquest report on Stride there is a very strong case for her murderer being RIGHT HANDED.

                      Whilst Dr Phillips did not categorically state this, I believe that his description of the body, the position of the killer and the angle of the throat injury clearly show the killer to be right handed.

                      Phillips' post-mortem details that Stride was lying flat on her back when her throat was slit from her left Carotid Artery, across her windpipe, finishing just to the right of her Adam's Apple. Phillips then said that the killer would have been on the left of the prone body when doing this, ie on the left when facing the body, therefore the killer was on his left but closest to Stride's right side (therefore clear of the flow of blood from the opposite side of Stride's body).

                      We can therefore assume that the killers right arm was closer to the body than his left, and we can make an educated assumption that the killer would position himself so that the hand closest to the body would hold the knife whilst the free hand would have held Stride down.

                      There was a small abrasion about one and a half inch circular on Stride's right jaw, and this was probably an impression left by the thumb of the killers left hend which would have been clamped over Stride's mouth to prevent her screaming. If the left hand was used to do this then the thumb would have sat on the jaw whilst the palm of the hand would have covered her mouth and the fingers could have gripped the chin.

                      With the killer kneeling to the left of the body (ie Stride's right side) and his left hand gripping the head, a right handed killer would have used the knife by dragging it towards himself. This would have dragged the knife from the left of Stride's throat across her windpipe, just as stated by Dr Phillips.

                      Surely it must now be accepted that:

                      i Stride was flat on her back, face upwards when killed

                      ii the killer was to the left of the prone body, ie on Stride's rightside (hence the flow of blood would have been away from the killer)

                      iii her face was held in the left hand (as supported by the thumb impression on the right jaw

                      iv the weapon was held in the right hand

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        ...There was a small abrasion about one and a half inch circular on Stride's right jaw, and this was probably an impression left by the thumb of the killers left h[a]nd which would have been clamped over Stride's mouth to prevent her screaming...
                        -- Uh, does anyone have a contemporary source for this? I don't believe I've seen this abrasion mentioned anywhere before. Though I do have "... an abrasion of the skin about 1 1/4" diameter, apparently slightly stained with blood, was under the right clavicle..." Thanks.

                        Pretty poor piece all round, if I may say so. Who is this Scott Hannaford with his left-handed JtR?

                        M.
                        Last edited by Mark J D; 05-30-2022, 08:44 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why No Stride Mutilations ?

                          Simple explanations:

                          1) She tripped in her drunken stupor and cut her fool neck on a conveniently-placed boot-scraper that no one ever noticed or mentioned.
                          2) She wasn't killed by Jack the Ripper or any other mutilator.
                          3) She WAS killed by Jack, but he was interrupted before he could get to the "fun stuff". "For Jollies", you know?

                          Now, if she WAS killed by The Ripper and he WASN'T interrupted, then you have a question.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by C. F. Leon View Post
                            Why No Stride Mutilations ?

                            Simple explanations:

                            1) She tripped in her drunken stupor and cut her fool neck on a conveniently-placed boot-scraper that no one ever noticed or mentioned.
                            2) She wasn't killed by Jack the Ripper or any other mutilator.
                            3) She WAS killed by Jack, but he was interrupted before he could get to the "fun stuff". "For Jollies", you know?

                            Now, if she WAS killed by The Ripper and he WASN'T interrupted, then you have a question.
                            If he was interupted and left the scene before the mutilations begun, then the body would have been decovered ''Before'' Diemschutz came into the yard . Compare the noise and possible interuption from Albert Cadoush at the Chapman murder ,yet he went ahead with the mutilations with her .
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                              If he was interupted and left the scene before the mutilations begun, then the body would have been decovered ''Before'' Diemschutz came into the yard . Compare the noise and possible interuption from Albert Cadoush at the Chapman murder ,yet he went ahead with the mutilations with her .
                              Hi Fishy,

                              Why would an interrupted JtR result in her body being found before Diemshutz arrives? All that had to happen was that JtR leaves and nobody else arrives until Diemshutz does.

                              "Jackus Interuptus" (ok, for those who do know Latin it's probably clear I don't! ) is a bit of a catch-all statement that encompasses JtR leaving for some reason only he really knows. The interuption event could be something external, as exemplified by the original 1888 idea that the external event was Deimshutz's arrival. Other possibilities exist, though, such as (and I'm just trying to recall things that have been suggested in the past)
                              1) someone opened the club door or a window, but didn't come out.
                              2) people came near an open window while talking
                              3) the singing in the club suddenly stopped - inciting fear they've noticed things
                              4) a sound from the street made it appear someone was approaching
                              5) not sure if this has been suggested, but it might be possible that Goldstein's passing by, looking at the club (but not seeing into the dark alley), was spotted by JtR, but then Mrs. M. would have to go inside at about that time to allow for JtR to leave without her seeing him - I rather doubt this, but it is dramatic and would make for a good movie scene. Oh, and Mrs. M. has to come outside just after JtR gets Stride into the ally as well. Hmmm, I think I'm seeing why it's not been suggested before, but I'll leave it just for a jolly.

                              However, there is no necessary reason why the interruption actually has to be external, but rather could have been an internal process.
                              For example:
                              1) if one goes with the idea that JtR tends to spend some time with his victim, toying with her in a way through conversation and making her relax, etc, and then he suddenly attacks, well, all of those things do not appear to have happened with Stride. The doctors suggest she was possibly fleeing him, and he grabs her scarf, etc, so it appears something went wrong. And if you couple that with B.S. = JtR, then there doesn't appear to have been much of that initial phase, and it didn't go "right" for him. That initial phase, the build up to the attack, if it was important to JtR in terms of him getting satisfaction, or it was required for him to build up to the point where he then moved on to mutilation, then the interruption might have been in his head "It wasn't going right - it isn't satisfying - he hasn't built himself up enough" etc, and so he leaves, because it's not what he needs.
                              2) something about all the noise in the club just spooks him, or makes the area just too uncomfortable. After his close call with Chapman, he might be more wary about areas with people about, so again, he leaves after cutting her throat.
                              3) he notices how wet and muddy the ground is in the area, and decides he doesn't want to get tell tale mud stains on his trousers.

                              and I'm sure we can think of all sorts of internal thoughts that could arise that simply made him think "No, something isn't right about this one". What those could be will depend upon one's view of JtR - a psychopathic or psychotic killer. The more one leans to psychotic, the more bizarre the ideas become (all the way to something simple like "The voices told him "no, not this one" to the more bizarre "She offered me a sweet, so she's nice" for example - yah, the "she's nice" seems contradicted by the fact he still killed her, but psychotic thoughts are not really all that rational or internally consistent).

                              Anyway, what I'm getting at, is that the only real way we can know if JtR was interrupted (externally or internally) is to determine if Stride really was a victim of JtR. If she was, then something made him deviate from his normal signature of abdominal mutilations. Of course, if she's not, then that alone becomes the explanation - very very few murders involve this type of mutilation after all, so he wasn't interrupted per se, he just isn't JtR.

                              We can't use the lack of mutilations to prove Stride was not a victim of JtR, - all that does is open the possibility she wasn't. As such, we need to focus on determining if Stride was killed by the same person who killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, and if we decide she was then we know something resulted in him not going on to mutilate Stride. That "something", be it external or internal, becomes the "interruption." And if she's not a victim of JtR, then that becomes the explanation for the lack of mutilations. But regardless of who killed her (JtR or not JtR), that doesn't tell us what time the murder occurred given that JtR's interruption doesn't have to be an external event and so working out that question doesn't tell us if Deimshutz as the person of first discovery is plausible.

                              It is the time of her murder that determines whether or not Deimshutz finds her first, not who killed her. Who killed her, and what time that was, are independent bits of information. Given the preponderance of information points to Deimshutz being the first to find her, then we can try and work out the comings and goings of all the other people to see if we can then isolate the time window during which the murder occurred. But if we do that, it still will not tell us one way or the other if the person who killed her during that time window was JtR or not. That's what I mean by independent bits of information; answering one of those questions does not provide information as to the answer of the other.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X