What's the compelling feature?

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"If you didn't speak in semantics so much, perhaps people would better understand what you're getting at. I agree that she likely was laid down on her left side with the Ripper's body/legs supporting her back as he slit her throat. My contention remains the same - The Ripper maneuvered them onto their left side to suit his purpose. That he did this so swiftly in the case of Stride merely supports the contention that her killer was the Ripper."

Tom I am not the one getting the semantics wrong here. You are. You wrote that Stride was TURNED on her left side. She was not, something it seems you agree on.

You were wrong, I was right. If you want to call it bad semantics on my behalf, please feel free to do so. It will surprise noone.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"Well, I guess we can strike Chapman off the list as well. Oops, and Eddowes too! Our job keeps getting easier and easier. Soon we can exonerate Jack on the grounds that he killed no one!"

...not to speak of all the ones we can INCLUDE if we venture to use Mitch´s demands for recognizing a Ripper victim, Tom! That should open up ripe and rich fields for your research...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

You were wrong, I was right

And there it is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Yup, Tom. Well spotted!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Schwartz to Swanson : " the man tried to pull the woman into the street,but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway"

Schwartz to Star : " The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage"

No, it occured in the passageway.

My brain's still spinning on this. I need to check some stuff, but I think Jon hit on something here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Before we create a boxing ring here, please dont forget that the question is what is the compelling feature of Liz Strides murder that said to investigators and I suppose should say to us today, she was a victim of this Whitechapel murderer.

When I asked the question I tried to avoid prejudice, I think so we should in looking for the answers.

It cannot be her single wound. Deep or shallow, both arteries or 1.6 of them cut, her single knife wound could not be a conclusive indicator for a killer that has opened both of the the prior Canon victims midsections after their death.

It might be her profile....middle aged, street whore at times, possibly soliciting, no bed paid for that night,...the testimony of the Club members about a vacant yard at that time. Certainly circumstantial evidence that leaves that door open. But not "compelling".

Is it the accumulation of the data that triggers the Stride Canon gene to activate?

My question stems from the conviction that there are murders within the Canon that do speak with some volume about the potential killer or killers.... just as they were found. For example, was Kate ever really considered killed by anyone other than this "Jack" fellow? And after Polly, Annie was really the same scenario, slightly more risque due to the time and the overlooking windows, but just Polly and a new addition, extraction and removal.

Liz quite obviously cannot be included on the basis of her wound alone, nor on the issue of profile alone, since retrospectively we know an approximately 26 year old woman in bed in her room is later suggested as a victim, there is no "profile" as such with the choice of victim or location. Based on that line of thought.

Which means her "profile" match is probably irrelevant.

I believed when I started the thread that it would be impossible to comprehend why Elizabeth Stride should be in the Canon without applying some subjectivity or personal opinion to the data.

The killer must have been interrupted.
He must have intended more cutting.
There can only be a certain amount of men running around killing women with knives at one time, the chances are this was Jack.
The single artery severance isnt the issue, the depth of the swipe is.
Jack must have been in the vacant yard.
Jack must have suddenly appeared after Schwartz runs home.."incontinently".

When it appears that the only "must haves" are really that she has only one cut with no signs more were even contemplated...hence the lack of an obvious "disturbed" action by the killer, and that the medical man charged with estimating her time of death at 1:16am stated that she died between 20 and 30 minutes before his arrival. Or 12:46am....immediately after Schwartz leaves, or 12:56am...4 minutes before Diemshutz arrives.

You say how can you be so sure it was 4 minutes?

Check the times again, Im using the worst possible time for the sake of my argument. I could easily suggest 12:51 as the middle...which then leaves a whole lot more 'splaining to do about why there are no signs he even touched her after killing her. It could even have been using his estimate 12:46am.....try "Jacking" up that one. Immediately after being seen scuffling with a man. My 4 minutes is in the favor of the pro Jack folks, not the reverse. To be fair.

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

This stuff is admittedly confusing:

"Schwartz to Swanson : " the man tried to pull the woman into the street,but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway"

Schwartz to Star : " The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage"

To me, it suggests that it all took place partly in the entrance to the yard, and partly on the street.
"The footway" would not refer to the muddy yard. Therefore she would have been thrown to the ground on the pavement, as far as I understand.

Also, the claim that she was pushed back into the passage seems to point to her having been outside as the pushing began.

Problem is, if we accept that she went down, it seems that she did so outside the passage in case number one, but inside it in case number two...?

Next problem is that the Star version does not include the fall:

"He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alleyway where the body was found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the pass- age, but feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder."

The specific pushing bit does not involve any fall, and Schwartz seems not to have been alarmed to any greater extent by it. Therefore, it seems that Schwartz only realized that there was a quarrel going on AFTER he had seen her being pushed back into the passage, when he heard sounds he interpreted as a row, and turned back to have a closer look.

My guess is that the discrepancies between the two versions was caused by a combination of the Star reporters work and bad interpretation. It is not the only oddity offered by comparing the two versions, and the suggestion that the problem may have lain to a significant extent in language difficulties is unavoidable.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

I think it's time to start a new thread on this. It's definitely worthy of discussion. I'll start one now since Jon's not around.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Well I guess we can also say that the BS man must have been Liz's killer and simply disregard the problems with his canidacy.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

That, Michael, was a very good post! Though there are posters around who unhesitatingly state that the Stride killing had all the traits of a Ripper deed to it, I think your stance is a much more sound one, and very well argued; for there are NO compelling reasons around to point her out as a Ripper victim, just like you say.
The time (double event and all that) and the place (Jacks hunting grounds) are instrumental to those who favour her as one of Jack´s. To realize this, just make the experiment of moving one of the "real" victims to Hyde park. Or outside the Tower. Or Fleet Street. Or Mayfair. No matter where you put them, long as they are in London (or thereabouts), people would have said "Wow, look; now he´s killing in Mayfair!" "Geez, he´s done it on Fleet Street this time over!" and so on.
Now, move STRIDE to Mayfair - and we would not connect her death with the Ripper deeds in any way at all today.

Anyone want to challenge that view?

The best,
Fisherman

[jason_c]

Perrymason

Lets forget Diemschutz for a minute.

We have eyewitness testimony that the killer was interrupted. He was interrupted by Schwartz AND possibly pipe man. If the account by Schwartz is correct then this makes this 4 minute window to mutilate redundant. A slit to the throat is then all thats necessary to prevent any future ID of him by Stride.

[c.d.]

Perrymason

Lets forget Diemschutz for a minute.

We have eyewitness testimony that the killer was interrupted. He was interrupted by Schwartz AND possibly pipe man. If the account by Schwartz is correct then this makes this 4 minute window to mutilate redundant. A slit to the throat is then all thats necessary to prevent any future ID of him by Stride.

Hi Jason,

I am assuming that you are referring to the BS man. How do we know that he killed Liz?

c.d.

[Natalie Severn]

On the other hand Fisherman,if I was told that there were two women killed within a ten minute walk of one another and the killings were on the same morning, 40 minutes apart and both by throat slitting,I would consider very seriously them to be related.If on top of that the coroner,having heard evidence from doctors,police and witnesses concerning both murders,was of the opinion that the evidence accrued from these three sources pointed to Jack the Ripper killing both victims on the same night,then I would be inclined to believe Stride ,like Eddowes was a Ripper victim.
This idea that the doctors and the police were all half wits is ridiculous.
Some of them may have been corrupt but they did have experience of serial killers and whats more they caught them-Dr Cream and George Chapman being two of them,both in London in the 1880"s and 1890"s[one in Whitechapel].Both were caught .Walter Dew ,one of the police in the Ripper investigation actally caught Dr Crippen a few years later. Today,with all our profiling ,DNA etc it still took over 250 murders
and over twenty years,before the most prolific serial killer ever known in the UK, Dr Harold Shipman, was caught.
So I reckon the coroner,who was advised by police reports and doctor"s reports as well as witnesses,knew the score when gathering the evidence to sum up and he concluded that the killer of Stride and the killer of Eddowes were one and the same.

c.d. That a good question.The killer could have arrived moments later.

[Mitch Rowe]

...not to speak of all the ones we can INCLUDE if we venture to use Mitch´s demands for recognizing a Ripper victim, Tom! That should open up ripe and rich fields for your research...!

The best,
Fisherman

Not correct. Ive been accused of oversimplifying the "Evidence" before. That is how I begin. Not how I end my conclusions. I strip away all witness statements and first use whatever I feel is there at the "Crimescene" to the best of my knowledge. What do I have then for Stride? Another murder occured less than an hour later wich is most likely another Ripper murder.
Thats about as pure as it gets. No way to fudge that up! At this point Im relatively sure this is JTR. But now lets introduce the rest of the evidence and see if anything else could be a logical explanation as to what happened to Liz Stride.
And I see nothing other than Schwartz testimony to support anything other than JTR. If Liz were killed by someone she knew then why didnt we find something about it? Mark my words. Police would have figured that one out in a jiffy.
On the other hand I see mounds of "Evidence" wich point to the idea that JTR killed two women that night.

What can I say..But come up with some outstanding evidence and I might take a second look. But its going to have to be a doozy.

[perrymason]

Perrymason

Lets forget Diemschutz for a minute.

We have eyewitness testimony that the killer was interrupted. He was interrupted by Schwartz AND possibly pipe man. If the account by Schwartz is correct then this makes this 4 minute window to mutilate redundant. A slit to the throat is then all thats necessary to prevent any future ID of him by Stride.

Thats an interesting take on the facts Jason. But we have no such sighting, we have an altercation witnessed between a man who was somewhat impaired by witness testimony, and a woman who will be killed within 15 minutes. Im a firm believer that this Broadshouldered Man may have killed Liz Stride...in fact he could have done it the minute Schwartz is out of sight... until around 5 minutes to one.

But she is cut minutes before a potential interruption is even on the same street, and thats all that was intended...by the crime scene evidence. "As if laid gently down"...."the clothes were not disturbed at all."

If your suggesting Jason that Jack the Ripper would fumble a pick up in front of two witnesses, and still kill the woman minutes later Jason....I would think Broadshouldered Man as Jack the Ripper is about as plausible as Lewis Carroll.

He was obviously impaired, according to Schwartz, and clumsily assaults a women in the street... with eye witnesses. Forget about just shutting her up....who shuts up Schwartz, or Pipeman? It doesnt work if he kills alone. If one of the two leaving kill with him, you have a slim chance.

Im open minded to an idea that makes sense with respect to The Ripper appearing, but not as a drunk clod. BSM was a thug, a bully, his description and interactions with Liz tell you that.

Jack could have been an accountant. And IMHO would walk away from a stupid move like killing a woman after being seen assaulting her just before.

Best regards.