Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[Aethelwulf]

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

there should be a separate area of case book called 'totally b*ll*cks stupid conspiracy theories' for this sort of nonsense. leave all the nutters to it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

there should be a separate area of case book called 'totally b*ll*cks stupid conspiracy theories' for this sort of nonsense. leave all the nutters to it.

But we’d get accused of being sentimentally attached to the ‘old stabilised theories’ Wulf.

[Sunny Delight]

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

I would agree. There is no harm in putting ideas out there for debate but the conspiracy nonsense is so ridiculous at times that it becomes off putting. Sometimes you feel like not posting because you don't get anything sensible back sometimes.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

In that case, he must have been talking about Eagle and Lave. You can't have it both ways.

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

It's about time we rid this subject of all the miserable sods who are too gutless to step out of their comfort zones, out of fear of confronting unwanted truths.

[FISHY1118]

And i repeat, There is no such evidence that Eagle and Lave were were on the spot where Schwartz saw the attact on Stride at 12.45am


Morris Eagle, who also affirmed, said: I live at No. 4, New-road, Commercial-road, and travel in jewellery. I am a member of the International Workmen's Club, which meets at 40, Berner-street. I was there on Saturday, several times during the day, and was in the chair during the discussion in the evening. After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home,'' ''going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one. I tried the front door, but, finding it closed, I went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way.''

Its safe to say Eagle was in the club at 12.40/1 am more than enough time for him to completley miss the whole schwartz /Stride incident .

Your making a total balls up of this whole affair . Move on .!!!!

[John Wheat]

there should be a separate area of case book called 'totally b*ll*cks stupid conspiracy theories' for this sort of nonsense. leave all the nutters to it.

I agree Aethelwulf. I also think the Diary should be in this section.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

In that case, he must have been talking about Eagle and Lave. You can't have it both ways.

No it doesn’t. Their times were estimations too. George, Frank and Eff have all done timelines which show how events probably panned out.

It's about time we rid this subject of all the miserable sods who are too gutless to step out of their comfort zones, out of fear of confronting unwanted truths.

There’s no such thing as a ‘comfort zone.’ The notion that I (and others) would have some kind of misguided, sentimental attachment to a certain version of events is beyond ludicrous. I have no theory to defend which requires Schwartz to be considered genuine, I’m undecided on whether Stride was a ripper victim or not. Your constant accusations just don’t stand up to scrutiny in regard to myself or anyone else. Jeff, to take but one example, is about as fair-minded an open as it gets and yet he doesn’t think that the evidence points to any kind of cover-up, is he a ‘gutless, miserable sod in your eyes? Is Frank? Is George?

The fact is that it’s you that won’t confront the unwanted truth……that nothing mysterious occurred. If you approach any topic with the ‘conspiracy goggles’ on you will undoubtedly find something but you are just rigidly reluctant to accept the obvious. That times shouldn’t be taken as being exact. The people do make errors. That the Press can exaggerate occasionally. That people can misinterpret.

The only unwarranted truth is that you absolutely, desperately want to find a mystery. You so desperately want to be the one to find something new that you can’t help but let your imagination run riot. And in doing this you have to turn a blind eye to the inconvenient…

Who was the genius that said “I know the ideal person to be our false witness; a Hungarian bloke who can’t speak English?
How lucky were they that the ‘man who wasn’t there’ had a real, checkable reason for being in a place that he never actually was?
How lucky were they that this man was so monumentally gullible that he ignored any very obvious possibility that some unknown witness in Berner Street might have been able to show the police that the incident didn’t occur?
How monumentally gullible was this man about placing himself alone at the scene of a murder in a series of horrific murders that were being blamed, in many quarters, on foreigners (tick) and Jews (tick)? Perhaps he hadn’t heard of the ripper?
How monumentally dumb were our plotters by ignoring all of the vastly more obvious and more effective alternative ‘plots’ in favour of this rubbish one?
How unlucky we’re they that Schwartz cocked up this childishly simple (if crap) plan?
Why didn’t the plotters make sure that all of those involved, and who would be questioned by the Police, had there timings tied up?
How could they have come up with such a plan in such a short space of time?
We have no known, or reasonable, motive for this kind of plot.
If we allow for a very reasonable, and very understandable margin for error on timings it has been shown time and again that the events in Berner Street could very easily have occurred without mystery. Only a point blank desire for mystery and the complete refusal to accept a margin for error prevents the acceptance of this.
How many times, when hearing of a murder in the street, do we learn of plots and false witnesses. Or is there a prosaic explanation 99.99% of the time?

All of this and more should be more than enough to tell us that there was no plot or cover-up. Simply a tragic murder involving fallible, human witnesses.

[Trevor Marriott]

There’s no such thing as a ‘comfort zone.’ The notion that I (and others) would have some kind of misguided, sentimental attachment to a certain version of events is beyond ludicrous. I have no theory to defend which requires Schwartz to be considered genuine, I’m undecided on whether Stride was a ripper victim or not. Your constant accusations just don’t stand up to scrutiny in regard to myself or anyone else. Jeff, to take but one example, is about as fair-minded an open as it gets and yet he doesn’t think that the evidence points to any kind of cover-up, is he a ‘gutless, miserable sod in your eyes? Is Frank? Is George?

The fact is that it’s you that won’t confront the unwanted truth……that nothing mysterious occurred. If you approach any topic with the ‘conspiracy goggles’ on you will undoubtedly find something but you are just rigidly reluctant to accept the obvious. That times shouldn’t be taken as being exact. The people do make errors. That the Press can exaggerate occasionally. That people can misinterpret.

The only unwarranted truth is that you absolutely, desperately want to find a mystery. You so desperately want to be the one to find something new that you can’t help but let your imagination run riot. And in doing this you have to turn a blind eye to the inconvenient…

Who was the genius that said “I know the ideal person to be our false witness; a Hungarian bloke who can’t speak English?
How lucky were they that the ‘man who wasn’t there’ had a real, checkable reason for being in a place that he never actually was?
How lucky were they that this man was so monumentally gullible that he ignored any very obvious possibility that some unknown witness in Berner Street might have been able to show the police that the incident didn’t occur?
How monumentally gullible was this man about placing himself alone at the scene of a murder in a series of horrific murders that were being blamed, in many quarters, on foreigners (tick) and Jews (tick)? Perhaps he hadn’t heard of the ripper?
How monumentally dumb were our plotters by ignoring all of the vastly more obvious and more effective alternative ‘plots’ in favour of this rubbish one?
How unlucky we’re they that Schwartz cocked up this childishly simple (if crap) plan?
Why didn’t the plotters make sure that all of those involved, and who would be questioned by the Police, had there timings tied up?
How could they have come up with such a plan in such a short space of time?
We have no known, or reasonable, motive for this kind of plot.
If we allow for a very reasonable, and very understandable margin for error on timings it has been shown time and again that the events in Berner Street could very easily have occurred without mystery. Only a point blank desire for mystery and the complete refusal to accept a margin for error prevents the acceptance of this.
How many times, when hearing of a murder in the street, do we learn of plots and false witnesses. Or is there a prosaic explanation 99.99% of the time?

All of this and more should be more than enough to tell us that there was no plot or cover-up. Simply a tragic murder involving fallible, human witnesses.

I think researchers have become blinkered in their approach to this murder, as were the police in 1888 by linking this murder to the rest when there are signifiant differnces which were clearly evident back then, and still are today and ignoring the most likely suspect for Strides murder that being Michael Kidney her boyfriend/partner.

I can find no record of Kidney accounting for his movements at the time of her murder.

Stride was seen arguing with a man shortly before her murder that man has never been identified so that arugment has all the hallmarks of a domestic argument and I dont believe for one minute that JTR would get involved in a street incident with a potential victim especially at that time of the night outside a club when the public were still about. That man could have been Kidney or simply a potential punter who she accosted who wanted nothing to do with her

It is documented that they had a torrid realtionship.

Kidney was previoulsy charged with assaulting her

There is also a conflict between his inquest testimony and other witnesses

From and investigative perspective if the the Stride murder had been a one off, then the first person given their torrid history togther who would have been suspected would have been Kidney but becasue of the previous murders and the murder of Eddowes the same night the police believed her murder to be the work of JTR taking the suspicion away from Kidney.

Shorty after her murder he went to the police station suggesting that he had information as to her murder but failed to disclose anything. I believe this to be an attempt to deflect any suspicion away from him.

Don Rumbellow in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper also postulates Kidney as a likely suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

It is documented that they had a torrid realtionship.

Kidney was previoulsy charged with assaulting her

There is also a conflict between his inquest testimony and other witnesses

Hello Trevor,

Yes, absolutely. The problem is that a ten year old child could have connected those dots and we are to believe that a trained Scotland Yard detective could not? Possible but very hard to believe.


From and investigative perspective if the the Stride murder had been a one off, then the first person given their torrid history togther who would have been suspected would have been Kidney but becasue of the previous murders and the murder of Eddowes the same night the police believed her murder to be the work of JTR taking the suspicion away from Kidney.

This same argument gets made with other suspects as well, Barnett, for example. But no matter the suspect the argument has the same failing. How could the police possibly know that the Ripper wasn't Kidney since they had no idea who the Ripper actually was?

c.d.

[Newbie]

Who said she wanted, or was planning, to use that location for sex? If she was there when BS man approached her with threatening behaviour, she may simply have felt safer staying put, where club members were coming and going, in case he turned really nasty, rather than going anywhere else, with or without him.



So?

Love,

Caz
X

I would agree with one caveat: she would have had that attitude whether or not she was soliciting,
given the recent killings.

Jack most probably was not alien to engaging prostitutes in some manner.

I highly doubt that the canonical five (& a few other victims more or less) were his only interactions with that profession,
and I doubt he had a now or never approach to his killings.

How many times did he pull out before an attack because the situation was not right, we'll never know.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is documented that they had a torrid realtionship.

Kidney was previoulsy charged with assaulting her

There is also a conflict between his inquest testimony and other witnesses

Hello Trevor,

Yes, absolutely. The problem is that a ten year old child could have connected those dots and we are to believe that a trained Scotland Yard detective could not? Possible but very hard to believe.


From and investigative perspective if the the Stride murder had been a one off, then the first person given their torrid history togther who would have been suspected would have been Kidney but becasue of the previous murders and the murder of Eddowes the same night the police believed her murder to be the work of JTR taking the suspicion away from Kidney.

This same argument gets made with other suspects as well, Barnett, for example. But no matter the suspect the argument has the same failing. How could the police possibly know that the Ripper wasn't Kidney since they had no idea who the Ripper actually was?

c.d.

The point being made is that if Kidney killed Stride he was not the Ripper because her murder was of a domestic nature.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Newbie]

And i repeat, There is no such evidence that Eagle and Lave were were on the spot where Schwartz saw the attact on Stride at 12.45am


Morris Eagle, who also affirmed, said: I live at No. 4, New-road, Commercial-road, and travel in jewellery. I am a member of the International Workmen's Club, which meets at 40, Berner-street. I was there on Saturday, several times during the day, and was in the chair during the discussion in the evening. After the discussion, between half-past eleven and a quarter to twelve o'clock, I left the club to take my young lady home,'' ''going out through the front door. I returned about twenty minutes to one. I tried the front door, but, finding it closed, I went through the gateway into the yard, reaching the club in that way.''

Its safe to say Eagle was in the club at 12.40/1 am more than enough time for him to completley miss the whole schwartz /Stride incident .

Your making a total balls up of this whole affair . Move on .!!!!

Just a general complaint, and not just focused on this accounting:

are witnesses always looking at their watch before doing minor stuff, and are their watches running perfectly on time?

12:40 am is more likely anytime between 12:25 am and 12:55 am. I would guess that he backtracks in time based on the hullabaloo outside, learns of the official time for that event, and then estimates a time afterwards. How sober was he after 12 am is doubtful.

Only a police accounting of a significant event (murder?) should be taken with any degree of precision.

[Newbie]

Throat slashing seems like such an unusual choice in a dispute fueled by drunken rage and frustration: its not punishment, its a quick death.
It was not a robbery, where one robs a person and then eliminates them from screaming.

Its perpetrated by someone who has meditated upon killing; its what an assassin would do.

Jealous boyfriends are always number one suspects....or else there would not be operas.
Its possible that the police did not require Stride's boyfriend to furnish a convincing alibi, but very unlikely.

[c.d.]

Throat slashing seems like such an unusual choice in a dispute fueled by drunken rage and frustration: its not punishment, its a quick death.
It was not a robbery, where one robs a person and then eliminates them from screaming.

Its perpetrated by someone who has meditated upon killing; its what an assassin would do.

Jealous boyfriends are always number one suspects....or else there would not be operas.
Its possible that the police did not require Stride's boyfriend to furnish a convincing alibi, but very unlikely.

Agree on all points, Newbie

It seems that to accept the idea that the B.S. man killed in a drunken, frustrated rage is to simply gloss over the fact that no argument was heard post Schwartz. No indication that Stride was slapped around. No stab wounds to the body. No clothes torn. And a killing after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man. Possible? Yes. But all the evidence seems a deviation from the norm and what we would expect to see from the B.S. man as her killer.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think researchers have become blinkered in their approach to this murder, as were the police in 1888 by linking this murder to the rest when there are signifiant differnces which were clearly evident back then, and still are today and ignoring the most likely suspect for Strides murder that being Michael Kidney her boyfriend/partner.

I can find no record of Kidney accounting for his movements at the time of her murder.

Stride was seen arguing with a man shortly before her murder that man has never been identified so that arugment has all the hallmarks of a domestic argument and I dont believe for one minute that JTR would get involved in a street incident with a potential victim especially at that time of the night outside a club when the public were still about. That man could have been Kidney or simply a potential punter who she accosted who wanted nothing to do with her

It is documented that they had a torrid realtionship.

Kidney was previoulsy charged with assaulting her

There is also a conflict between his inquest testimony and other witnesses

From and investigative perspective if the the Stride murder had been a one off, then the first person given their torrid history togther who would have been suspected would have been Kidney but becasue of the previous murders and the murder of Eddowes the same night the police believed her murder to be the work of JTR taking the suspicion away from Kidney.

Shorty after her murder he went to the police station suggesting that he had information as to her murder but failed to disclose anything. I believe this to be an attempt to deflect any suspicion away from him.

Don Rumbellow in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper also postulates Kidney as a likely suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ditto c.d’s post. Surely we can’t assume that the police didn’t bother checking to see if Kidney had an alibi though?