Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You beat me to it with that last point Jeff. Perhaps, if BS man was the ripper, he wasn’t intending to kill that night? So he’s trundling off home after a pint or eight when he bumps into Stride touting for business. He’s not so far gone though that he doesn’t realise that it’s hardly the ideal spot but basically she’d ‘lit the spark’ so he initially tries to persuade her to go somewhere more private. A bit of pulling goes on a she ends up on the floor. She’s adamant that she’s not going anywhere when ‘this’ was the ideal spot.

The ideal spot for what?

He loses it and cuts her throat (in his drunken, confused state he might even have wondered if she’d come to think that he was the ripper?) He hears the singing upstairs, perhaps the side door is open or partially open (as per Mrs Diemschutz) or perhaps someone walks past the gate so he decides to scarper but the spark had been lit so he goes in search of another victim?

Was the man who killed Kate Eddowes, in a drunken, confused state? Why would a man in that state care about a bit of singing, or even someone going to the outside loos? Especially if he had 'lost it', which implies a loss of self-control.

[Herlock Sholmes]

JB: I went indoors, and when I had nearly finished my supper I heard screams of "Police" and "Murder." That was about a quarter of an hour after I had seen the man and woman.

The 12:45 estimate would seem to be fairly accurate. Brown's witnessing of a couple on his way home from the shop, but not on his way to it, seems to coincide with the arrival of the couple who spoke to the press and Mrs. Mortimer.

A young girl had been standing in a bisecting thoroughfare not fifty yards from the spot where the body was found. She had, she said, been standing there for about twenty minutes, talking with her sweetheart, but neither of them heard any unusual noises.

FM: A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about 20 yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound.

We also have Joseph Lave placing himself on the street in the 12:45 period, and reporting to have seen nothing unusual. All of these witnesses must be moved out of the way, to clear the scene for The Sacred Cow of Berner Street.

‘Fairly accurate’ doesn’t equate to exact though. We have a handful of witnesses and of that handful you’ve decided that Schwartz is the turd-in-the-swimming-pool. In reality though we know at least 2 things for certain. First, that the incident was of very short duration - the incident in the street can have taken no more than a few seconds followed by a quick throat-cutting out of site in the shadows at the side of the club. Second, that all of the witnesses were estimating their times and we don’t know how they came to their estimations (where and when they last saw a clock or indeed how accurate that particular clock was) So all that’s required for this confrontation to have occurred is for the street to have been deserted for a minute or so. We have a very reasonable (non-sinister) explanation for the couple based on the evidence. They were initially in Berner Street then they moved around the corner into Fairclough Street where Brown saw them. So Dutfield’s Yard was out of sight to them, they would have been out of sight of anyone in Dutfield’s Yard and they didn’t hear anything because Stride wasn’t loud.

There’s no mystery here unless we make a deliberate attempt to create one. Yes, witnesses can lie, anyone can lie but the vast majority of the time witnesses tell the truth as they see it (and we know that they can very often be mistaken in descriptions, times etc) If we rigidly adhere to exact times then we obviously have problems but we know for example that Halse and Long claimed to have been in Goulston Street at the time and yet they didn’t see each other. Did they lie? Of course not, it was down to estimations of time. The same has to be applied to events in Berner Street. So the question is - if we allow for a reasonable margin for error on timings is there any problem with the events in Berner Street. The answer is emphatically no. When we get a murder in the street how often do we find planted witnesses and cover-ups? It might be a good plot for a novel but our first question should be “is there a reasonable explanation?” If there is then it’s overwhelmingly likely to be the solution. I’ve never understood the desire to create mystery where none exists. We have enough mystery in this case without inventing more imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not only his account that should be doubted, at least to some extent, but also the feeble reason he gave for being on Berner street at that time of night.

There’s nothing ‘feeble’ about it. At any given point in time people do things that, when explained, might appear a little strange to us but there’s no point in applying the ‘well I wouldn’t have behaved in that way’ argument. I don’t see anything ‘feeble’ or ‘strange’ in the slightest about what Schwartz said especially when we have to accept that we’ve been handed down a truncated version of what he’d said. If Schwartz were here now and could explain to us what went on that day then it more then we wouldn’t have any issues.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Exactly! The chances of what he claimed to see and hear being noticed by no one, is slim. Someone or someones was probably lying.

Not in the slightest. There was no one on the street for that short duration of time. This is immeasurably more likely than the suggestion that a non-English speaking Israel Schwartz would turn up at a Police station and pretend that he was at the scene of a murder (with no-one to verify his presence or to verify that he himself didn’t attack Stride himself and without knowing whether someone would have popped up to say “well I was looking out of my window from 12.30 until Mr Diemschitz arrived and I saw no argument in the street and I could see the gates of the yard from my window.”

The idea really should be kicked well into the long grass.

[c.d.]

If jack the ripper had killed Stride ,the 15 mins would have been more than enough for any mutilations.

The spooked part ive already covered, it would have to have been almost a dead certainty that someone was coming into that yard for him to move on [hence the body would be discovered well before 1.00am

But time is not the only factor in play. And a physical interruption is not the only thing that could have made him move on. Simple mind generated paranoia could do that as well. Remember, if he is caught he is most likely hanged or put in an institution.

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

‘Fairly accurate’ doesn’t equate to exact though.

The exact what? The exact second? Minute? Or the 5 minutes or more that the entire incident would have occupied?

It doesn't need to be exact - fairly accurate is probably good enough, and if it's not, then there are witnesses other than Brown to consider. Besides, Brown passed within the near vicinity of the murder site, twice, within a 5 minute period. Why did he see a couple by the school, but no one running along his own street? Why didn't the couple see or hear anything unusual? If one of the couple was indeed Stride, then she was not at the gateway being assaulted, she was quietly talking to a man, just as she had been seen doing earlier, by Marshall.

We have a handful of witnesses and of that handful you’ve decided that Schwartz is the turd-in-the-swimming-pool.

Many versus one. Sounds like a good bet.

In reality though we know at least 2 things for certain. First, that the incident was of very short duration - the incident in the street can have taken no more than a few seconds followed by a quick throat-cutting out of site in the shadows at the side of the club. Second, that all of the witnesses were estimating their times and we don’t know how they came to their estimations (where and when they last saw a clock or indeed how accurate that particular clock was) So all that’s required for this confrontation to have occurred is for the street to have been deserted for a minute or so.

Schwartz placed himself and 3 others in the street. The incident begins when the first of the 4 arrives, and ends when the last departs - in whatever manner. Bracketing the event to Schwartz's point of view is arbitrary. However, it is necessary to do this to maintain the belief in the event lasting a few seconds. Your problem here is that Stride could conceivably have been standing at the gates for a few minutes or more. BS man could have continued his behavior after the other men leave the scene - claiming to know that BS man killed, and when he did so, is just being assumed to fit the event into the few seconds you need to fit it into. However, the earlier arrival and later departure of those Schwartz claimed to see, could also have been witnessed, but evidently you think that a multi-minute 'Schwartz incident' is too risky to suppose. Do you have confidence in Schwartz - yes or no?

We have a very reasonable (non-sinister) explanation for the couple based on the evidence. They were initially in Berner Street then they moved around the corner into Fairclough Street where Brown saw them.

Who is 'we'? Calling this explanation 'very reasonable', doesn't make it so. Stride was seen by Smith, with a man carrying a parcel. Brown didn't see a parcel and Schwartz didn't see this man at all. What is your very reasonable explanation for that?

So Dutfield’s Yard was out of sight to them, they would have been out of sight of anyone in Dutfield’s Yard and they didn’t hear anything because Stride wasn’t loud.

Oh, so this couple did not include Stride, but they had been in Berner street, and didn't see Stride when they were. So where was Stride at this point? On the Dutfield's Yard loo?

25 yards is not far enough on a quiet street, to not hear screams and shouts. Sound refracts around objects and bounces off hard surfaces. The incident would have been heard. The 'chase' would have been seen. Neither were. Someone lied.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There’s nothing ‘feeble’ about it. At any given point in time people do things that, when explained, might appear a little strange to us but there’s no point in applying the ‘well I wouldn’t have behaved in that way’ argument. I don’t see anything ‘feeble’ or ‘strange’ in the slightest about what Schwartz said especially when we have to accept that we’ve been handed down a truncated version of what he’d said. If Schwartz were here now and could explain to us what went on that day then it more then we wouldn’t have any issues.

So we wouldn't have any issues because we have have faith in Israel Schwartz - a man whose identity we are unsure of.

What on earth is going on here?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Not in the slightest. There was no one on the street for that short duration of time. This is immeasurably more likely than the suggestion that a non-English speaking Israel Schwartz would turn up at a Police station and pretend that he was at the scene of a murder (with no-one to verify his presence or to verify that he himself didn’t attack Stride himself and without knowing whether someone would have popped up to say “well I was looking out of my window from 12.30 until Mr Diemschitz arrived and I saw no argument in the street and I could see the gates of the yard from my window.”

Your looking out a window for half an hour notion, is totally contrived. Either Schwartz felt that minute risk was worth it, or the men he claimed to see were named Morris Eagle and Joseph Lave. Or possibly both were true. Whatever the case, someone(s) lied.

The idea really should be kicked well into the long grass.

The Sacred Cow of Berner Street has been grazing long enough. It's time to cut its throat.

[FISHY1118]

Your making up your own stories as you go along , what indeed is going on here . G eez Louise


Its beginning to look more and more like Lechmere all over again. The hundred different ways he was the killer , with not anything at all except circumstancial evidents and made up scenarios to suggest he was .

[Cody75111]

There is a possibility for the lack of mutilations that hasn't been mentioned here yet;
'Jack' WANTED to kill 2 women that night.

If you look at it from that point of view, it's quite a clever plan.
1. Kill victim in Met territory
2. No mutilations because killing is the only motive. No organs to walk about with (could get messy).
3. Move to City territory (escaping early Met response)
4. Kill Victim and mutilate (his reward)
5. Move back to Met territory (avoiding early City response)*
6. Leave apron.

Result; He's killed 2 (his plan) and got both Police forces hot and bothered.

*obviously he's moving back into Met territory which is dangerous but he still at least is moving further away from Berner Street.

I'm not sure about the hour gap before the apron is found. I always thought Long may have simply missed it. But when i went to Goulston Street recently, the space was far smaller than i imagined and I find it difficult to believe Long would have missed it. My small idea is that 'Jack' lived in Goulston Street and simply waited for Long to pass before throwing the apron out of the window..

This whole suggestion of course posits an intelligent game-playing, cunning Ripper.. and that's the thing. I'm not sure I do believe in that sort of Ripper.. Ha!

All the best
Cody

[FISHY1118]

There is a possibility for the lack of mutilations that hasn't been mentioned here yet;
'Jack' WANTED to kill 2 women that night.

If you look at it from that point of view, it's quite a clever plan.
1. Kill victim in Met territory
2. No mutilations because killing is the only motive. No organs to walk about with (could get messy).
3. Move to City territory (escaping early Met response)
4. Kill Victim and mutilate (his reward)
5. Move back to Met territory (avoiding early City response)*
6. Leave apron.

Result; He's killed 2 (his plan) and got both Police forces hot and bothered.

*obviously he's moving back into Met territory which is dangerous but he still at least is moving further away from Berner Street.

I'm not sure about the hour gap before the apron is found. I always thought Long may have simply missed it. But when i went to Goulston Street recently, the space was far smaller than i imagined and I find it difficult to believe Long would have missed it. My small idea is that 'Jack' lived in Goulston Street and simply waited for Long to pass before throwing the apron out of the window..

This whole suggestion of course posits an intelligent game-playing, cunning Ripper.. and that's the thing. I'm not sure I do believe in that sort of Ripper.. Ha!

All the best
Cody

Interesting points Cody .

[Varqm]

It's possible he wanted to kill two.Or he escaped to the city side,maybe had a temporary hideout and coincidentally happened upon Eddowes.Probably took 12 to 15 minutes from Berner to Houndstitch..Eddowes was just recently released.This is the only time he killed two,that it was a coincidence was probable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The exact what? The exact second? Minute? Or the 5 minutes or more that the entire incident would have occupied?

Where do you get 5 minutes from? Not even close to 5 minutes. One minute tops.

It doesn't need to be exact - fairly accurate is probably good enough, and if it's not, then there are witnesses other than Brown to consider. Besides, Brown passed within the near vicinity of the murder site, twice, within a 5 minute period. Why did he see a couple by the school, but no one running along his own street? Why didn't the couple see or hear anything unusual? If one of the couple was indeed Stride, then she was not at the gateway being assaulted, she was quietly talking to a man, just as she had been seen doing earlier, by Marshall.

He didn’t see them first time because they were around the corner. The incident occurred when he was in the shop.


Many versus one. Sounds like a good bet.

It’s no bet. The chances of him lying about being there are so small that they’re not worth wasting time and effort on.

Schwartz placed himself and 3 others in the street. The incident begins when the first of the 4 arrives, and ends when the last departs - in whatever manner. Bracketing the event to Schwartz's point of view is arbitrary. However, it is necessary to do this to maintain the belief in the event lasting a few seconds. Your problem here is that Stride could conceivably have been standing at the gates for a few minutes or more. BS man could have continued his behavior after the other men leave the scene - claiming to know that BS man killed, and when he did so, is just being assumed to fit the event into the few seconds you need to fit it into. However, the earlier arrival and later departure of those Schwartz claimed to see, could also have been witnessed, but evidently you think that a multi-minute 'Schwartz incident' is too risky to suppose. Do you have confidence in Schwartz - yes or no?

I don’t see a single reason for even vaguely suspecting Schwartz of not being there. My position is that he was there.

Who is 'we'? Calling this explanation 'very reasonable', doesn't make it so. Stride was seen by Smith, with a man carrying a parcel. Brown didn't see a parcel and Schwartz didn't see this man at all. What is your very reasonable explanation for that?

Brown didn’t see a parcel because he didn’t see it. Schwartz didn’t see this man because they weren’t there at exactly the same time.

Oh, so this couple did not include Stride, but they had been in Berner street, and didn't see Stride when they were. So where was Stride at this point? On the Dutfield's Yard loo?

25 yards is not far enough on a quiet street, to not hear screams and shouts. Sound refracts around objects and bounces off hard surfaces. The incident would have been heard. The 'chase' would have been seen. Neither were. Someone lied.

No one lied.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So we wouldn't have any issues because we have have faith in Israel Schwartz - a man whose identity we are unsure of.

What on earth is going on here?

You keep inventing childish cover ups. That’s what’s going on. That’s all that ever ‘go’s on’ when you post. You’re obsessed with it. No cover up. No conspiracy. No plot. No mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your looking out a window for half an hour notion, is totally contrived. Either Schwartz felt that minute risk was worth it, or the men he claimed to see were named Morris Eagle and Joseph Lave. Or possibly both were true. Whatever the case, someone(s) lied.

Schwartz cannot have known that no one in Berner Street could have proved that he wasn’t there any time around 12.45. To shoehorn your cover up in you have to presume monumental stupidity or gullibility on the part of Schwartz. But hey, in a fantasy anything goes.

The Sacred Cow of Berner Street has been grazing long enough. It's time to cut its throat.

Its about time we rid this subject of barking mad conspiracists.