What's the compelling feature?

[FrankO]

Enjoy the weather! And if you're walking around holding an ice-cream or a wadge of cash, I'd be inclined to watch your back. I may be tempted to conduct a little Stride/cahous-related field reseach.

I'd be happy to treat you to an ice-cream, Ben - but don't blame me if it ends up in your face!

[Ben]

I'd hazard a guess that the average would have been somewhere between 30-something and 40-something, although we have no data.

Probably a reasonable estimate, Gareth.

I'll try it this way: If you examine the points of similiarity (general though they may be) between the Lawende and Schwartz descriptions and come up with a generic suspect that encompasses only the similarities (i.e. at the exclusion of red neckerchief, pepper and salt etc which Schwartz didn't mention), and extract from Tower Hamlets anyone fitting that description who was on the streets when the double event was being perpetrated, you'd have extracted a minority group.

While the vast majority of the population will meet some of the criteria, only a minority will meet all of it, even though "all" in this case didn't amount to very much at all.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

Taking things strictly at face value, the absence/presence of the red neckerchief would seem to indicate that the witnesses saw two different men.

[FrankO]

Hi Mitch,

What could be more unbiased than the purity of the timings? Who can change that? The Police?

What does the purity of the timings have to do with getting an unbiased view of Stride's murder? My point was and is that one isn't going to get an unbiased view of Stride's murder if one's going to start by coupling it to Eddowes' murder from the outset or, in other words, even before one has examined Stride's crime scene and the circumstances surrounding her murder in isolation. Yet, your posts seems to be advocating such an approach.

When I look at Stride's murder I see:
1. Stride was lying on her left side when found and had not been moved into that position after she hit the ground (not the ideal position for abdominal mutilations - for which the Ripper risked his very life).
2. There were pressure marks over both shoulders in front, especially the right.
3. Her scarf was pulled very tight and the bow was turned to the left, causing Dr Blackwell to form the opinion that the murderer had grabbed her by the scarf from behind and had pulled her backwards.
4. Earlier during that night Stride was seen by a couple of witnesses who said her male companion, who was respectably dressed, showed affection by hugging and kissing her.
5. This coupled with the flower pinned to her dress suggests that something other than just business had been going on that night.
6. There were no abdominal mutilations.

Then, the more general circumstances:
1. A street that was not particularly known for prostitution.
2. A street where it seems to have been exceptional even to meet couples.
3. A neighbourhood that was still quite lively at that time of night, or at least, it was far from deserted.
4. A building right next to the murder spot where people were so obviously still wide awake.

Whatever you say about these points, they are undeniable differences, and - even leaving out Schwartz's account - at the very least tell me that Stride was attacked differently than the others, and under circumstances that were clearly different than the ones surrounding the other cases - even Eddowes' case. And to me, that means room to doubt that she was a killed by the Ripper.

All the best,
Frank

[Mitch Rowe]

Poor Liz..If she had been smart and attentive she would have grabbed the knife from JTR and sliced her own guts out! Maybe even lopping off her nose before death.

Its impossible to isolate Strides death from Eddowes. Why? Because it didnt happen that way!! Eddowes is murdered less than an hour after Stride. FACT!!! It will always be a fact. That in itself makes it nearly impossible that the two murders are unrelated.
Go ask an expert. I use my real name on these boards for a reason. Im not afraid that Im doing this wrong. Im not afraid of any expert challenging me.
I know what the statistics are and Im pretty assured I know how to use them.

Any point made about the non inclusion of Stride in the C5 is nearly moot. Why?? Because of the timing!

Take this post to any modern profiling expert and listen to his/her comments about what I say.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mitch,

You may well be right but, to my mind, beyond the highly-suspect Saucy Jacky postcard there was nothing to suggest that the murders of Eddowes and Stride were anything more than coincidence.

Regards,

Simon

[FrankO]

Its impossible to isolate Strides death from Eddowes.

No it's not. If I can manage to look at Stride's murder as an individual case, then anybody should be able to do that.

Why? Because it didnt happen that way!! Eddowes is murdered less than an hour after Stride. FACT!!! It will always be a fact.

No need to shout there. And where did I say that it isn't a fact, or didn't happen?

Any point made about the non inclusion of Stride in the C5 is nearly moot. Why?? Because of the timing!

Yes, I get your point loud & clear: you're unwilling to get past Eddowes' murder in connection to Stride's, which is why you see nothing in Stride's murder that might suggest anybody other than the Ripper. It's called tunnel vision.

The best,
Frank

[perrymason]

The point I'm making is that whereas the Telegraph report does read as though Blackwell is saying that he thought Stride died more than 20 minutes before he saw her, the other two reports say quite different things.

The report in the Star says "She could not have been dead more than twenty minutes ...". That means she died less than 20 minutes before he saw her.

The report in the Morning Advertiser says "I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, or at the most half an hour ..." That means she died less than 20 minutes before he saw her - or less than 30 minutes at the outside.

So you can't take as your starting point that she died more than 20 minutes before he saw her. Because the evidence about this is conflicting. So what you are claiming may or may not be true.

Chris, you neednt have emphasized any words in the above post, I can assure you I understand what you suggest.

From the Inquest from Blackwell......."I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m."...and, as to how long she had been dead.."From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

Another case in point here is the thread question.....which in all these pages no-one has answered satisfactorily. And yet we get insistence that Eddowes and Strides killer must have been the same man.

Absolute nonsense and the very reason I started the thread. In order for Jack to be crowned Double Killer, you must have some compelling reason why a woman who is cut once before 1am, and has no attempts at further cutting visible, ....was killed by the man who killed a little more than 45 minutes later in Mitre Square. That they were both killed on the same night is a b******t answer.....that Jack killed Kate so it must have been Jack that killed Liz is unproven, speculative and at this point b******t, and that Liz is so obviously a Ripper victim by the known circumstances of her death is also a b******t answer. In fact all that is known is two women were murdered that night by knife, in fact it was 3 women.....and one was in the East End and one in the City,...the one in the city most resembles "Ripper" type mutilations.

Lots of derogatory comments back and forth for sure, but not one viable, compelling reason for her to be assumed a Ripper victim.

If you want a Jack The Ripper guy for all the Canon, you must suspend logic and reason, and use your "instincts". Im not interested in individual instincts here...Im interested to see if there is ONE valid contribution on the thread premise.

Shes seen in an altercation just outside Dutfields Yard at approx 12:45am, with an intoxicated Broadshouldered Man, ...the witness then leaves immediately. By Club witness accounts the club yard was empty at 12:40 and no witnesses stated seeing anyone in the yard or outside the gates at that time, or until Diemshutz arrives at 1:OOam. The senior medical authority gives a time of death at 1:16am by his watch that was at the very earliest 4 minutes to 1am, and as late as 12:46am. The minute Schwartz leaves...and the suspect is still interacting with the soon to be victim. The only two known people at that location at that time.

And a single compelling reason for a "Cannoning".....?

Best regards.

[Chris]

perrymason

Well, I've pointed out to you three times now that there are conflicting reports of Blackwell's opinion, and still you keep repeating the one that supports your point of view, and completely ignoring the others.

But perhaps somebody else may find the information useful, even if you're determined to take no notice.

[perrymason]

perrymason

Well, I've pointed out to you three times now that there are conflicting reports of Blackwell's opinion, and still you keep repeating the one that supports your point of view, and completely ignoring the others.

But perhaps somebody else may find the information useful, even if you're determined to take no notice.

Chris, You've pointed out that the Press recorded a version of his statement which conflicts with the very clear Inquest reference to the timing that I pointed out. Contrary to popular belief, not all issues here are as "grey" as made out to be.

Of course the one conflicting account might be the correct one, as might Mrs Maxwells contradiction of Dr Bonds findings. But I know that I cannot trust the statement of Carrie Maxwell because Bonds statements werent prefaced with a warning he was in disagreement with Carrie Maxwell's evidence....it was the other way around. And I know who among the two I can trust more...and which account of Blackwells is consistently reported.

Bonds finding are the benchmark for all other witnesses, anyone that conflicts with his TOD estimates based on body temperature, digestion, rigor onset....cannot be considered trustworthy accounts. Nor does one conflicting bit of reportage diminish clear and concise statements.

Best regards.

[Chris]

Chris, You've pointed out that the Press recorded a version of his statement which conflicts with the very clear Inquest reference to the timing that I pointed out.

But it's not clear what Blackwell said at the inquest, because the Morning Advertiser's report of his inquest testimony differs from the Daily Telegraph's. That's the point I'm making!

On top of that there is the Star's report of a different statement he made, which directly contradicts the Daily Telegraph's version of his inquest testimony.

And as if that weren't enough, there's the fact that it would have been quite impossible for Blackwell to estimate the time of death with an error of plus or minus 5 minutes, as the Daily Telegraph has him claiming to have done.

[Chris]

But it's not clear what Blackwell said at the inquest, because the Morning Advertiser's report of his inquest testimony differs from the Daily Telegraph's. That's the point I'm making!

Actually, a quick survey of the inquest reports available on this site shows that I was perhaps being too pessimistic:
____________________

I do not think the deceased could have been dead more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour.
Daily News, 3 October

Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived.
Daily Telegraph, 3 October

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.
Morning Advertiser, 3 October

I think deceased could not have been dead more than twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived.
The People, 7 October

When he got to the yard at 1.16 a.m. the body was still warm, and the woman could not have been dead more than twenty minutes or half an hour.
St James's Gazette, 3 October

The CORONER. - How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?
Witness. - From 20 minutes to half an hour when I arrived.
Times, 3 October
____________________

So the Times says the same as the Telegraph, but the other four have variations of the same not more than 20 minutes to half an hour formula, which is consistent with, while slightly more cautious than, the statement that Blackwell had earlier given to the press. Looking at the version in the People, it's easy to see how the Times and Telegraph versions could have arisen, simply by the qualifier "not more than" having been dropped.

[Roy Corduroy]

Visual Aids

The artwork of Jane Coram. This one below is titled Israel Schwartz. There are two more contained in a dissertation by Mr. Sironi and Ms. Coram on the science of witness interpetation.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-sironi.html

More Jane Coram. Seven more on Stride, including several of the Yard, and, in fact, artwork for five victims here.

http.//www.jtrforums.co.uk

You can see an animated feature, the route of PC Smith. Click Play.

http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-william_smith.html

And also the animated routes of the City police here:

http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-edward_watkins.html

http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-james_harvey.html

[perrymason]

Chris, I appreciate you taking the time to source other articles, and I had read them before making my statements, but I am slightly confused as to your summary there.

What I can see is that the Doctor was saying she had been dead 20 minutes to a half an hour, in variations. My point then being he was able to make such a determination due to the very short period that takes us from the cut to his examining her, and his medical training and experiences. He also did so using a watch, therefore being cognizant of the TOD he was suggesting.

Using that as the primary guide, and adding in Diemshutz's stated time, Eagles and Laves comments, and lacking any from Fanny Mortimer to counter the known data, she is killed before 1am in a deserted yard. The only people known at that location, near or just outside the yard when Schwartz leaves,... are Liz Stride and Broadshouldered Man. They were witnessed having an altercation at approx 12:45. Schwartz immediately continued on home after witnessing the event, as did a man across the road who had been smoking a pipe.

The throat cut clock has begun. Sometime between 12:46am and 12:56am, it stops.

At 1, or just after, Diemshutz horse shies left while entering Dutfields Yard.

This is the foundation by the evidence, and it seems to me to reveal that Liz and Broadshouldered Man are the only two people at the scene after 12:45-46 until 1:00am..that we know of, only Goldstein is seen walking by around 12:55am, at which time my guess is she was cut and dying perhaps with Broadshouldered Man blocking his view of her,....and that no-one was seen in the yard from 12:40am on until 1am, and that Liz Stride must be cut between 12:46 and 12:56....taken literally, that leaves at least 4 minutes alone in an empty yard with a dying woman.

And she is left completely untouched until Diemshutz arrives, with not so much as a hint that the killer planned anything more than just killing her.

And within 45 minutes another woman is killed some 10 to 15 minutes walk away, on City turf, and that killer mutilated the abdomen of his victim postmortem...just as the one did with Polly, then Annie. That killer killed Kate and performed crude field surgery on her abdomen, cut her face, cut and tore a piece of her clothing, leaving with organs, in approx 5-7 minutes....if Lawende did see Kate with that man. Liz is cut at latest 4 minutes to 1.....and is found with that single cut at approx 1am.

I dont think its unreasonable or irrational to summarize the bare facts of the case this way, and they do not seem to include any evidence that is suggestive of the two killers being one man...unless of course....which is why I started this......the first killing was interrupted.

I believe the physical and medical evidence is clear, and neither indicate that the killer attempted, began, considered, prepared for, or initiated any actions upon Liz Stride after the cutting of her throat. Which occurred sometime shortly before Diemshutz arrives.

Best regards.

[Chris]

What I can see is that the Doctor was saying she had been dead 20 minutes to a half an hour, in variations.

Well, two of the reports I quoted say that, but the other four say not more than 20 minutes to half an hour (or words to that effect).

I'm not sure how I can explain it any more simply than I have done already, but "not more than 20 minutes to half an hour", means "20 minutes to half an hour or less".

It doesn't mean "more than 20 minutes", as you are claiming.

Surely you can understand that?