Why No Stride Mutilations ?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

One problem that is widespread is starting off with a conclusion that may not be true.What evidence is there that Stride was the female seen by Schwartz?I believe that probably she was,but probably is not enough.It would lessen the the chances of an involvement by Kidney if she were not,as no evidence involves Kidney in the murder of Stride.

It means introducing another character into an already crowded scene, in which none of the players saw each other.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One problem that is widespread is starting off with a conclusion that may not be true.What evidence is there that Stride was the female seen by Schwartz?I believe that probably she was,but probably is not enough.It would lessen the the chances of an involvement by Kidney if she were not,as no evidence involves Kidney in the murder of Stride.

It’s also not impossible that Schwartz could have been wrong about the time Harry. The incident could have occurred around 12.30 just before Smith passed along Berner Street and it might or might not have involved Stride. I don’t see anything far-fetched about someone looking back and getting an estimation of time wrong by 15 minutes. I reckon that we’ve all done it numerous times.

Its all speculation of course but Kidney might have been involved in a way. If he’d arrived drunk and seen Stride at say 12.30 outside the gates waiting for someone he might have tried to get her to come home with him. Hence the pulling and the confrontation (it might also explain why she didn’t scream very loudly…she was used to rough treatment from Kidney and didn’t feel in fear for her life). They then part company but Stride, for whatever reason doesn’t go far then returns to the yard where she meets her killer. Kidney at the Inquest has something of the ring of truth about him for me (which means next to nothing of course) when he describes drunkenly trying to get the police to do more to catch Stride’s killer and that he could have done a better job. Perhaps he had feelings of guilt about leaving her to her fate? And naturally he wouldn’t have wanted to admit to have seeing Stride just before she was killed so a lie at the Inquest would have been unsurprising.

No evidence for any of that of course but who knows?

[harry]

One problem that is widespread is starting off with a conclusion that may not be true.What evidence is there that Stride was the female seen by Schwartz?I believe that probably she was,but probably is not enough.It would lessen the the chances of an involvement by Kidney if she were not,as no evidence involves Kidney in the murder of Stride.

[Abby Normal]

thing is i like a new theory and new ideas. for example, although i'm more than fond of sticking the boot into Lech I will admit that Fisherman has done a good job to present a case for someone who was at least at a crime scene, lived locally etc. Do I think he was the ripper, no way and it would take something new and very substantial/incriminating for any suspect to make me think them more likely than Bury.

Back to BS man/stride. Trevor's 'new' theory being the GSG has nothing to do with the ripper and Eddowes' just happened to drop a piece of apron/makeshift sanitary towel beside the GSG (at least i think that's what he's saying - no doubt he will take great delight in calling me a 'numpty' if that is not the case) - and there is no link between BS man/stride, lipski and GSG. Like I said, I like a new theory but what Trevor is presenting is just plain daft.

sure is. par for the course with him. along with the personal attacks.

and ive been saying for years the obvious connection between lipski, the apron and gsg disparaging jews. not to mention lawende and company being jewish and them also seeing the ripper (and the ripper knowing hes being interupted and being seen by more jews that night). the clues are there, if youve got eyes to see.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As long as you're considering POSSIBILITIES, Herlock, you missed one: Accident. The "boot-scraper" theory.

Or here's one that I've never heard: Stride has slipped into the Yard for "Sanitary purposes". Louis the Hawker comes in, the horse gets spooked, knocking poor Liz over onto the boot-scraper. So the HORSE is the Killer!

Only 208 posts and you’ve gotten the hang of it already. It took me around 10,000

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have a sketch....

https://photos.casebook.org/displayimage5fa7.html?pid=464&fullsize=1

Cheers Joshua. He looks like a certain Liverpool cotton merchant.

[Aethelwulf]

thank you! of course there was a connection.

thing is i like a new theory and new ideas. for example, although i'm more than fond of sticking the boot into Lech I will admit that Fisherman has done a good job to present a case for someone who was at least at a crime scene, lived locally etc. Do I think he was the ripper, no way and it would take something new and very substantial/incriminating for any suspect to make me think them more likely than Bury.

Back to BS man/stride. Trevor's 'new' theory being the GSG has nothing to do with the ripper and Eddowes' just happened to drop a piece of apron/makeshift sanitary towel beside the GSG (at least i think that's what he's saying - no doubt he will take great delight in calling me a 'numpty' if that is not the case) - and there is no link between BS man/stride, lipski and GSG. Like I said, I like a new theory but what Trevor is presenting is just plain daft.

[Abby Normal]

so there is no connection whatsoever between the man seen assaulting stride, his lipski comment, the Jewish related GSG and eddowes' apron?

Get a grip trevor

thank you! of course there was a connection.

[C. F. Leon]

And it’s not there to be dismissed simply because it’s been around for a long time and someone thinks that we need a change either. Taking another look and re-assessing should be done but it doesn’t mean that we have to cast things aside just for the sake of it. Sadly I think that this is what often happens. Someone decides that they want to be the ‘outside the box’ thinker who spots something that no one else has seen so they set out in search of a cause. And in cases like this there are rich pickings in terms of estimated and conflicting timings, differences from one report to another, press exaggerations and errors, words than can be interpreted in more than one way etc. So a ‘new’ theory is arrived at. The problem is that it becomes that persons ‘baby’ and they then proceed to defend it at all costs. And when people put up valid, logical and entirely reasonable objections they get labelled by the theorist as someone who has such a heartfelt connection to the existing theory that they just can’t bare to contemplate a new one. It’s just an excuse.

We can’t know if Stride was a ripper victim or not. It’s impossible to come to a definitive conclusion as there are pro’s and con’s just like other aspects of the case. So….

BS man killed Stride and was the ripper = possible.
BS man killed Stride and wasn’t the ripper = possible.
Someone else killed Stride and was the ripper = possible.
Someone else killed Stride and wasn’t the ripper = possible.
Suicide = about as close to impossible as we can get.

As long as you're considering POSSIBILITIES, Herlock, you missed one: Accident. The "boot-scraper" theory.

Or here's one that I've never heard: Stride has slipped into the Yard for "Sanitary purposes". Louis the Hawker comes in, the horse gets spooked, knocking poor Liz over onto the boot-scraper. So the HORSE is the Killer!

[C. F. Leon]

Of course, they both might have been telling the truth, and it was Stride who lied.

I was thinking that also. You beat me to the post. And it's POSSIBLE all 3 were telling the truth as they saw it, assuming Lane's testimony regarding what Stride said is reliable. And Stride and Kidney may be referring to two separate events.

He; We had a spat.
She: We had WORDS.
Her Friends: He's a wife-beater.
His Friends: She's a slut.
Neighbors: They had a right row, they did! Kept us up ha' the night! Damn dog was barking and we couldn't sleep at all. Happens EVERY Friday...
Dog (translated by Dr. Doolittle): No one fed me for TWO days, Man!!
End result: They lose the Damage Deposit. Dog sold to local dogs' meat dealer. Food poisoning hits half the neighborhood a week later.

[Joshua Rogan]

And I agree that Kidney should be considered. It’s certainly a pity that we don’t have a physical description of him.

We have a sketch....

https://photos.casebook.org/displayimage5fa7.html?pid=464&fullsize=1

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not over confident but somone killed Stride the evidence in my opinion points away from JTR so if the be the case the question has to be who? I am merely sugegsting that gine their torid history Kidney has to be considered

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I agree that Kidney should be considered. It’s certainly a pity that we don’t have a physical description of him.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wasn’t just referring to you btw.

But what I’ve seen are numerous posters who simply aren’t sure. You however seem far more certain that she wasn’t a victim. I don’t see why you have such a level of confidence?

As far as ‘amateur night at Dixie’ is concerned I don’t think that a police officer is any more likely to get to the truth than anyone else. Most of the things that have been found out in the years after those events were discovered by people who aren’t police officers. Many of us will remember ‘Plimmer’s wineglass’ as an example of something coming from a senior ex-police officer! And no, I’m not saying that we should dismiss the thoughts of an ex-police officer out of hand, but we can’t assume that their interpretations must be correct. We can’t be expected to say ‘well if an ex-copper think x then it must be true.’ It might be true but it might not.

On this particular aspect of the case Im undecided. We just can’t know which is correct but you seem very confident that you are. I think that you’re being over-confident. All option are still on the table for me at least.

I am not over confident but somone killed Stride the evidence in my opinion points away from JTR so if the be the case the question has to be who? I am merely sugegsting that gine their torid history Kidney has to be considered

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I presume the thinker you refer to is me but let me say I have over 40 years of assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal case which I still do to this day so i would like to think that if I highlight or identify and issue that needs addressing then there is a good reason for it.

The problem is that there are those who firmly believe that JTR killed Stride, those people have made their position clear and they are full entitled to maintain that stance and they as seen will fight tooth and nail to protect their position, and dare I use the term "old accpted theories" But they are not prepared to consider anything that goes against their beliefs or the old accpeted theories or logical thinking out of the box, as has been seem by some of the ridiclous comments and posts on this topic.

Then there are those who belive that Stride could have been killed by another in an unrelated murder to the Ripper murders, but are not preared to consider suspects for her murder when a plausible suspect is introduced.

The thought processess and the posts I see on here from some of the armchair detectives who sit here and hold court day after day, hour after hour, is nothing short of amateur night at dixie. That being said I do have the respect for several posters who do post regularly and who do apply common sense and logical thinking to their posts with some even concurring with me on important issues that have arisen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I wasn’t just referring to you btw. And I’m not saying that your opinion isn’t worth listening to Trevor but you surely can’t expect people just to agree with you because of your background?

But what I’ve seen are numerous posters who simply aren’t sure. You however seem far more certain that she wasn’t a victim. I don’t see why you have such a level of confidence?

As far as ‘amateur night at Dixie’ is concerned I don’t think that a police officer is any more likely to get to the truth than anyone else. Most of the things that have been found out in the years after those events were discovered by people who aren’t police officers. Many of us will remember ‘Plimmer’s wineglass’ as an example of something coming from a senior ex-police officer! And no, I’m not saying that we should dismiss the thoughts of an ex-police officer out of hand, but we can’t assume that their interpretations must be correct. We can’t be expected to say ‘well if an ex-copper think x then it must be true.’ It might be true but it might not.

On this particular aspect of the case Im undecided. We just can’t know which is correct but you seem very confident that you are. I think that you’re being over-confident. All option are still on the table for me at least.

[Trevor Marriott]

And it’s not there to be dismissed simply because it’s been around for a long time and someone thinks that we need a change either. Taking another look and re-assessing should be done but it doesn’t mean that we have to cast things aside just for the sake of it. Sadly I think that this is what often happens. Someone decides that they want to be the ‘outside the box’ thinker who spots something that no one else has seen so they set out in search of a cause. And in cases like this there are rich pickings in terms of estimated and conflicting timings, differences from one report to another, press exaggerations and errors, words than can be interpreted in more than one way etc. So a ‘new’ theory is arrived at. The problem is that it becomes that persons ‘baby’ and they then proceed to defend it at all costs. And when people put up valid, logical and entirely reasonable objections they get labelled by the theorist as someone who has such a heartfelt connection to the existing theory that they just can’t bare to contemplate a new one. It’s just an excuse.

We can’t know if Stride was a ripper victim or not. It’s impossible to come to a definitive conclusion as there are pro’s and con’s just like other aspects of the case. So….

BS man killed Stride and was the ripper = possible.
BS man killed Stride and wasn’t the ripper = possible.
Someone else killed Stride and was the ripper = possible.
Someone else killed Stride and wasn’t the ripper = possible.
Suicide = about as close to impossible as we can get.

I presume the thinker you refer to is me but let me say I have over 40 years of assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal case which I still do to this day so i would like to think that if I highlight or identify and issue that needs addressing then there is a good reason for it.

The problem is that there are those who firmly believe that JTR killed Stride, those people have made their position clear and they are full entitled to maintain that stance and they as seen will fight tooth and nail to protect their position, and dare I use the term "old accpted theories" But they are not prepared to consider anything that goes against their beliefs or the old accpeted theories or logical thinking out of the box, as has been seem by some of the ridiclous comments and posts on this topic.

Then there are those who belive that Stride could have been killed by another in an unrelated murder to the Ripper murders, but are not preared to consider suspects for her murder when a plausible suspect is introduced.

The thought processess and the posts I see on here from some of the armchair detectives who sit here and hold court day after day, hour after hour, is nothing short of amateur night at dixie. That being said I do have the respect for several posters who do post regularly and who do apply common sense and logical thinking to their posts with some even concurring with me on important issues that have arisen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk