For what reason do we include Stride?

[Michael W Richards]

Herlock, a consistent theme running through your rebuttals is about a possible interruption, yet I believe you understand that there is no evidence to that effect within the known data. Sure, lots of things could have happened there, but when you open the door to pure speculation...which that is,..then you must allow for the improbable as well, which cannot possibly educate anyone as to what actually did happen. And what happened is that a regularly employed charwoman with regular residence in a doss house is found murdered inside a dark passageway near 1am with her throat cut once, severing 1 artery completely. She was dressed presentably, with flowers on her jacket and had cachous clutched in her hand. The alleyway belonged to a club that was believed to harbor anarchists by the local authorities and the neighbours, with an anarchist newsletter being published on the grounds, and the body was found sometime between 12:45 and 1am, according to witnesses interviewed onsite within an hour of the murder. Some 30 members remained at the club after a meeting dispersed at around 11:30, singing upstairs. The club manager found the body, at either approx. 12:45 as 3 witnesses claimed or at 1am precisely as claimed by the manager, and then 2...( or 3, as would be the case if one Isaac Kozebroski's statement to the press on the grounds an hour or so after the murder was accurate in its details), parties went out to look for a policeman just after 1am. That's it.

Liz Stride's murder is included in the Canon based purely on timing and speculation, because the wounds don't match any other alleged Ripper murder, the circumstances are unclear, and there is no evidence that can be used to explain why she lacked any of the trademark Ripper mutilations. She is one of 3 women that night who had their throats cut, but only 1 that had it cut twice and had her abdomen mutilated and was left splay legged on the ground.

[JeffHamm]

For what it's worth, I fully agree that the evidence we have is entirely consistent with explanations that include Stride as a ripper victim and with explanations that do not. I've never been able to tip the balance to favour one option over the other. To the extent other aspects aspects of the case hinge upon drawing such a conclusion vary. For example only here, those who see the Dear Boss letter as genuine have put their stake in the ground on the Stride is definitely included road of this fork in the road, so any further reasoning that follows is building upon what I see as a very unsafe foundation. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing, or even that it is necessarily wrong. But to me it does mean that when one points to "But we can't be sure that Stride is included, and therefore if there even was a double event!" is always a valid point. One might have drawn that conclusion for themselves, but as much of the final weight of the evidence falls on our subjective estimates of how probable things are, I think it's important we recognize that subjective evaluations are opinions, and opinions vary, hence, despite our own strong personal beliefs, that's not evidence. When we can bring in objective probabilities, though, based upon actual measurements, then that subjective side at least can be deminished. Things like "An emperical study show that 95% of the time blood clots within X minutes under these conditions of temperature", can give us reason to prefer certain time frames over others, even if it doesn't allow a 100% confidence in ruling out times beyond X minutes.

Hmmm, that went off on a tangent pretty quickly.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

Nice response post there, Herlock. And a very sound conclusion as well.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To address your embolden print in my post;

1. Wasn't addressing the question of the identity of the killer, just the fact she had the cashous clutched.
Your whole post is about showing that Stride wasn’t killed by the ripper but ok.
2. In no other alleged Ripper murder is there evidence of a garrote being used.
Not really a stumbling block if we simply suggest that in trying to subdue her before the kill he saw the scarf and used it.
3. Liz was standing on private property, just after a meeting involving primarily men, while 30 or so remain inside making noise she could hear, in a dark alleyway leading to an ajar kitchen door. Entitled to be there is a valid and reasonable assumption about her state of mind.
I don’t think so. It could simply mean that she felt that she could get away with doing business on that spot. These women weren’t exactly shrinking violets when it came to earning a crust.
4. There is not one tiny, miniscule, microscopic hint that any disturbance happened within the Inquiry accepted statements. Why do people keep perpetuating myths.
Because something wasn’t mentioned at an inquest isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. It might not have happened but we cannot know for certain.
5. There were lots of female throat cuttings that Fall, 3 on the Double Event night alone. I personally believe the double cuts help sort them out.
Fatal ones? And were they prostitutes?
6. When there is no ripping, there is no evidence a Ripper did it. There is in this case belief alone.
And of course this is why there is a doubt. But it’s no more than a doubt. That the killer was disturbed is a plausible possibility.
7. The violent outbreak by club members, ones who at the time of the murders had active roles in what the Police described as an "anarchist" club...who had a murder occur on their property, establishes a reputation that may well include murderous acts. As to who spoke the truth...3 people stated they were in the alley by the body around 12:45, one stated he went in that passageway at that time and saw no-one and "couldn't be sure" if he had to step around or over a dying woman, by the time the police arrive we have only Diemshutz's word...and a shaky remembrance by Eagle, to help establish an arrival time of 1am precisely. Which he claimed. Someone lied.
This isn’t proof of anything. You are elevating doubts to certainty.
8. I wouldnt say that at all, many have believed this premise over the years, Im suggesting that belief has no support within the evidence, so lets stop making a Canon based on unsupported beliefs.
And let’s not indulge in conspiracy theorist thinking where any minor error or doubt is elevated to the level of fact simply to bolster an opinion.

Iv never argued a suspect in this case here, or anywhere else, I do not presume to know the identity of that person based on the fact other murders occurred around the same time and area, Im just certain that there is no evidence that Liz Stride was killed by someone with a reputation of double throat cuts and pm abdominal mutilations.
The very simple, plausible suggestion that the killer might have been disturbed should prevent us from being certain that this wasn’t a ripper killing. Again, it might not have been. We cannot know for certain....that means that you cannot know for certain. This is logic.

If you have access to some additional evidence that to-date is unknown, hey, lets go....but if not, stopping telling me that logic and reason are arrogance.

I don’t know how to describe it when someone claims to know something for a fact when they categorically cannot

Stride may or may not have been killed by the ripper. That’s the best that we can say with honesty.

[Michael W Richards]

The biggest issue in Ripperology is over-confidence. Stride might not have been killed by Jack but there’s nothing to justify stating this as a fact. That said, obviously you are entitled to feel as confident on the subject as you want to. ‘’Clearly’’ is a word that we can rarely be justified in using in this case.

To address your embolden print in my post;

1. Wasn't addressing the question of the identity of the killer, just the fact she had the cashous clutched.
2. In no other alleged Ripper murder is there evidence of a garrote being used.
3. Liz was standing on private property, just after a meeting involving primarily men, while 30 or so remain inside making noise she could hear, in a dark alleyway leading to an ajar kitchen door. Entitled to be there is a valid and reasonable assumption about her state of mind.
4. There is not one tiny, miniscule, microscopic hint that any disturbance happened within the Inquiry accepted statements. Why do people keep perpetuating myths.
5. There were lots of female throat cuttings that Fall, 3 on the Double Event night alone. I personally believe the double cuts help sort them out.
6. When there is no ripping, there is no evidence a Ripper did it. There is in this case belief alone.
7. The violent outbreak by club members, ones who at the time of the murders had active roles in what the Police described as an "anarchist" club...who had a murder occur on their property, establishes a reputation that may well include murderous acts. As to who spoke the truth...3 people stated they were in the alley by the body around 12:45, one stated he went in that passageway at that time and saw no-one and "couldn't be sure" if he had to step around or over a dying woman, by the time the police arrive we have only Diemshutz's word...and a shaky remembrance by Eagle, to help establish an arrival time of 1am precisely. Which he claimed. Someone lied.
8. I wouldnt say that at all, many have believed this premise over the years, Im suggesting that belief has no support within the evidence, so lets stop making a Canon based on unsupported beliefs.

Iv never argued a suspect in this case here, or anywhere else, I do not presume to know the identity of that person based on the fact other murders occurred around the same time and area, Im just certain that there is no evidence that Liz Stride was killed by someone with a reputation of double throat cuts and pm abdominal mutilations.

If you have access to some additional evidence that to-date is unknown, hey, lets go....but if not, stopping telling me that logic and reason are arrogance.

[JeffHamm]

But Jeff, What is he guilty of? All Jack is doing is talking to a victim. He isn't seen having an altercation with them as in the case with Liz, and he doesn't drag them into the street neither. He goes quietly and silently to a corner/spot where he thinks he is safe [mainly in the dark], before he tries to subdue them quickly and silently.
He doesn't go shouting anything to a potential witness to try and scare them off
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

I just think that being spotted with the victim would be a deterrent, but since that appears not to have been, I see no great reason to see why he would stop now. Obviously that's a subjective evaluation, so opinions will vary. To me I see it as, if it's JtR, the witnesses have both fled, and that would give him a bit of time to finish what he started, but not enough time to do all he wanted. And JtR was not adverse to murdering and mutilating during short windows of opportunity. Other than Kelly, he often had very little time before someone was bound to show up. It appears all of the other victims, were found within 15 minutes or so of being murdered (oddly, Chapman seems to have been the longest, around 30 minutes after being murdered, despite this seeming to me to be the most risky and irrational choices of murder locations of all of them), and he may even have been scared off in the case of Nichols (by the arrival of Cross/Lechmere, or by Paul, pending on one's view of Cross/Lechmere as a suspect - either way, though, someone shows up).

I don't know, it just doesn't seem to me like a choice that is all out of character for JtR given what he chose to do at other murder locations. If it's not JtR, I suppose it seems more odd, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest this is evidence to support him being JtR.

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

Yah, but then, it appears Chapman may have been seen my Mrs. Long shortly before JtR kills her at daybreak in a fenced in backyard of a house filled with people just after the neighbor has gone to the outdoor loo, and also killed Eddowes just after being spotted by 3 people who just passed them, and if any of the people seen with Kelly killed her, then again, having been spotted shortly before and in very risky locations for murder doesn't seem to deter him, so while it would be stupid to make that choice, almost all the murders occurred in locations where it would be stupid to do so Granted, in the other cases he's not seen in an altercation with the victim, and the sightings are not universally viewed as being of JtR and the victims, but that's the way with this case. If we only consider universally accepted bits of evidence, we end up with nothing to explain.

- Jeff

But Jeff, What is he guilty of? All Jack is doing is talking to a victim. He isn't seen having an altercation with them as in the case with Liz, and he doesn't drag them into the street neither. He goes quietly and silently to a corner/spot where he thinks he is safe [mainly in the dark], before he tries to subdue them quickly and silently.
He doesn't go shouting anything to a potential witness to try and scare them off
Regards Darryl

[JeffHamm]

Could it have been possible that just as the killer had cut Stride’s throat someone opened the side door of the club possibly just for a minute of fresh air standing in the doorway? The killer, fearing that the man was coming into the yard, makes his escape. No one mentions standing at the doorway of course but they might just have feared being suspected of being involved and so kept quiet. There’s no evidence for this of course but it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have happened.

Yes, that, or some other noise from the club which he thought might be someone coming out. There was enough activity going on that even a sudden lull in activity might have spooked him, and that would be something those inside the club would not even recognize as important.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

Yes, that is a well thought out post and it seems like you are willing to view things from different angles.

But if Schwartz is correct in saying that he only saw Stride being pushed and that she was alive when he left does it not seem strange that the B.S. man would therefore go on to kill Liz after being seen by Schwartz and Pipeman because at this point he is only guilty of pushing a woman?

c.d.

Yes, it does. But I also think many of the murders occur in places where I think it would be strange to choose to commit them (I really can't get my head around the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street as a place one could possibly choose to commit a murder of any sort, let alone stick around to mutilate the body - he's fenced in after all). So, I'm not adverse to ideas where JtR might make choices I cannot see as sensible. To be fair, I think one can overplay that card as well. I like to think I'm only using it once here, and in a way that seems consistent with other odd choices JtR made. But yes, I agree with you, it's an odd choice to make if he only just pushed her and wasn't at the start of a murderous assault.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

So BS man kills Liz after being seen by Schwartz not forgetting pipeman, in a street overlooked by a three storey building where the lights where on, a good old song and dance was happening which anyone passing down the street would hear. Plus where anyone could have looked out of the window at anytime to spot him dragging Liz into the yard before or after he had slit her throat. Not forgetting the fact that the light shining from the building would probably make the street better illuminated. Also Brown, Mortimer and Goldstein where probably all nearby at the relevant time not forgetting the comings and goings from the club. So Bs drags Liz into the street and chucks Liz on the floor where she screams before , beside all I said kills her.
Well if that is Jack or anyone else who killed her for that matter then stupidity does not come into it.
Regards Darryl

Yah, but then, it appears Chapman may have been seen my Mrs. Long shortly before JtR kills her at daybreak in a fenced in backyard of a house filled with people just after the neighbor has gone to the outdoor loo, and also killed Eddowes just after being spotted by 3 people who just passed them, and if any of the people seen with Kelly killed her, then again, having been spotted shortly before and in very risky locations for murder doesn't seem to deter him, so while it would be stupid to make that choice, almost all the murders occurred in locations where it would be stupid to do so Granted, in the other cases he's not seen in an altercation with the victim, and the sightings are not universally viewed as being of JtR and the victims, but that's the way with this case. If we only consider universally accepted bits of evidence, we end up with nothing to explain.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

Hello Jeff,

Yes, that is a well thought out post and it seems like you are willing to view things from different angles.

But if Schwartz is correct in saying that he only saw Stride being pushed and that she was alive when he left does it not seem strange that the B.S. man would therefore go on to kill Liz after being seen by Schwartz and Pipeman because at this point he is only guilty of pushing a woman?

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

You describe Schwartz as witnessing the initial "attack." He only describes Stride being pushed to the ground. Not really much of an attack.

You also say the B.S. man goes on to kill Stride because she could definitely identify him. But identify him as what? The man who pushed her? Hardly a hanging offense.

c.d.

Yah, I get that what is described need not have been a murderous attack, and could be described as pushing. I'm starting from the assumption it was something more and seeing where that leads to see if there's any obvious inconsistencies that arise because of that assumption. It's not proof the assumption is correct though, only that the hypothesis is viable. If BS pushed her because she solicited him and then left, we end up considering the possibility that she continued to solicit others who came by, and the next one was not content to just push her. The latter moves things closer to Deimshutz's arrival, and makes interruption more plausible, etc. I was wondering if a viable line of reasoning arises if BS is JtR and Schwartz witnessed the start of the assault against her without shifting the times (time estimations are very error prone, but I wanted to not play that card this time just to see).

As I say, and hope I'm being clear, I'm not suggesting that must be the way it happened, just exploring if we start from those conditions does what follows start tripping over those initial assumptions. I don't think it does, making it a viable hypothesis, but certainly not a proven one.

I like to explore what happens when starting conditions are set in different ways, but that doesn't mean I believe those starting conditions have to be true - just "what if we fill in the unknowns this way, what follows?" if that makes sense.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

Hello Jeff,

You describe Schwartz as witnessing the initial "attack." He only describes Stride being pushed to the ground. Not really much of an attack.

You also say the B.S. man goes on to kill Stride because she could definitely identify him. But identify him as what? The man who pushed her? Hardly a hanging offense.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"Ive become tired of being diplomatic on this most obvious point all these years,so.... Liz was very clearly not killed by a Ripper and many of the clubs senior staffers including the nights speaker definately lied about certain aspects of what actually transpired."

Hello Michael,

Wait...you've been diplomatic all these years? Well, who knew? But thanks for clearing up the whole Stride issue. So she wasn't killed by the Ripper and the club members definitely lied? Well, I'll be damned.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Stride was a ripper victim and broad shoulders was the ripper. The final clue in this little sub mystery is the peaked cap, which all the relevant witnesses saw the suspect werimg that night.

cashoo red herring.

"cachous"

c.d.