For what reason do we include Stride?

[c.d.]

"I hope you see by those facts why interruption is not only unwarranted theory, it is in contrast to the timing evidence of what could be done in that span."

Hello Michael,

Here is the problem. An interruption does not have to be physical as in being done by some other person. If Jack is caught and convicted he gets hanged. If we assume for the sake of argument that he does not want that to happen (which seems to be a reasonable assumption) it is therefore not unreasonable to assume that virtually anything could have spooked him. As for the timing evidence, you are assuming that he was alone with Stride that entire time. But what if he got spooked by something and ducked into the shadows to make sure everything was ok? His paranoia gets the better of him and he gives it up as a bad business. In that scenario, the timing argument falls apart.

A killer (or any criminal) getting spooked is commonplace. You seem to want to put it on a par with aliens landing and handing out Bible tracks. I think it was the Yorkshire Ripper who stated that he bolted on a couple of occasions for no reason other than his own paranoia.

You state that there is no evidence for this happening. But what evidence would there be? Do you think that he would write a note saying that he was about to mutilate Stride but got scared off before he could begin?

You are right that the interruption theory can't be proven but to me (and certainly others on these boards) it seems quite reasonable.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Nothing personal, but Ive repeated what is on this website many times without any luck selling on you what is real and what is guesswork. Ill pass on a continued head against the wall practice. Best of luck with your theory.

If you are absolutely, inarguably correct in everything you postulate on this issue. And it really is so obvious. Would you consider it stupidity or dishonesty that causes most people to disagree with you?

[Michael W Richards]

I can see we will never get agreement on my main point here that when there is no known cause for speculating about an interruption that it isnt something we should be wasting time speculating about. You don't agree, I get it. As to what serial killers do regularly, as you said there are no rules to follow, but Im saying when 2 consecutive murders match each other in virtually every relevant category then you like have preferences and methods evidence. The differences between those 2 murders are minute, and the differences in those 2 to Strides murder are significant.

Without an interruption you will not be able to persuade anyone that someone who has an established pattern that includes pm mutilations for some unknown reason changes those preferences.

Look at the Berner evidence....there is no need to assume he was caught over the woman by someone, the very least he has over the woman after the single cut is around 5 minutes, IF Louis didn't lie. 3 peoples statements tell us he did..but that's another disputed point, and again, Im tired of offering the known evidence over and over again to counter only speculation. The evidence says she was cut once, left untouched from that point, and that the elapsed time from cut to discovery is far more than mere seconds.

Remember, Morris Eagle and Lave said at around 12:45 they were at the gates to the passageway. Theye didn't see each other, or Liz, or BSM, or Pipeman, or anyone in the alley. yet we know from Fanny that Liz is definitely not in the street by 12:50. Ergo, she entered that passageway before 12:50. Her cut could have been made at around 12:55-:56, which has her inside the gates for at least 5 minutes, and there 5-6 minutes before Louis says her arrived. Now, remember that Kate may have been led from just outside Mitre at around 1:35 to the spot where she is killed,... killed, gutted, had her face cut, the apron cut and ripped, her colon section cut and placed beside her body, and had fled unseen by Watkins entering around 12:44. That's around 8 minutes total. For all that activity and movement. But you ask me to believe that the same killer had maybe 10 minutes with a woman in the dark and only managed to cut her throat once? Not even roll her onto her back, shove her skirts up...nothing.

I hope you see by those facts why interruption is not only unwarranted theory, it is in contrast to the timing evidence of what could be done in that span.

Nothing personal, but Ive repeated what is on this website many times without any luck selling on you what is real and what is guesswork. Ill pass on a continued head against the wall practice. Best of luck with your theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t keep reminding you of the fact that there is nothing upon which to found a theory that includes an interruption, although I realize how structurally important it must be to the current Canonical proposition, so I see why it keeps inserting itself into rebuttal. Im not proposing anything that is not fully supported by the evidence, which is why I take offense at having to argue these facts against something purely speculative. Which an interruption is.

Its certainly not because it’s ‘structurally important.’ The question is whether Stride might have been a victim of the ripper or not? The question is asked for very obvious reasons of course - we have a known prostitute, killed on the street by having her throat cut in the early hours during a period of throat cutting prostitute murders within the same small area. Of course we have differences too (the throat cutting and lack of mutilations for eg) and so it’s reasonable to ask if circumstances might account for the differences? The answer to that is a pretty resounding ‘yes.’ The killer might have been disturbed by Diemschutz or someone unknown. Of course we can’t prove this as we have no one seeing the killer fleeing the scene. You’re correct of course when you say that the idea of an interruption is speculation but speculation can’t be taboo in a case where so much is unknown.

Therefore I can’t understand why you complain when you state things like ‘...I take offence at having to argue these facts against something purely speculative.’ The suggestion of an interruption is beyond all doubt a reasonable, if unproven, one. Far more reasonable I’d suggest than the notion of more than one throat cutting prostitute murderer operating within a few streets of each other at the same time and targeting the same type of victim.

.
That aside, without too much disagreement one would imagine, I suggest that the first 2 victims matched in almost every category that would be relevant in an investigation...Victimology, Methodology, Skill Sets, Targets, Signatures,... They, being rather unique and eerily similar and within a 2 week span, can be pretty safely assumed to have been committed by the same person or persons. If that's Jack, there is a wealth of information about him in those 2 murders. To then accept Stride means that any information gathered from those first murders should be presumed to have been a result of a specific situation, and only coincidentally similar.

I have never seen the value of trading off what is learned from the first 2 murders so that Stride can then be accommodated within a C5 framework. The first 2 acts gave us lots to use, I suggest using that data rather than insisting I, or anyone else, accept a proposed scenario that is not founded by evidence, but rather by imagination.

We shouldn’t discard information but I think that we should be wary of thinking that there is some kind of serial killer handbook. That killers follow a rigid, unalterable method. If there are differences then it’s quite reasonable to ask ‘can we possibly account for these differences by looking at circumstantial changes?’ It’s not a ‘trade-off’ it’s an ‘evaluation’ which surely has to take place when we are faced with a series of throat-cutting prostitution murders within a small area and tight time frame. It’s not done so that we can fit Stride into the series it’s done so that we can evaluate whether she was or wasn’t. Objectively I’d say that we cannot come down with any certainty on either side. You could be absolutely correct in your view. Stride could well have been killed by an acquaintance, a rejected suitor or an angry punter. Equally, she could have been killed by Jack the Ripper who was disturbed by Diemschutz and fled after he’d gone into the club. Then unsatisfied and raging angry he went and found Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square.

.
As to a diss to cd, since first coming here he has taken offense to my largely black and white and sometimes brusque posts, my post reflected that history more than anything else. He likes the traditional scenario. I don't.

This case is rarely black and white I’d say.

Im not disputing the value of your opinion that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim. As I’ve said, you might be absolutely right but I’m afraid that we’ll never know for certain. The only thing that I can’t understand is your level of confidence on this issue when there is obviously room for doubt.

[Michael W Richards]

Your insecurities are showing when you need to resort to insults. I was merely being polite. C.D. according to you is part of a ‘peanut gallery’ for simply agreeing with my post. As you feel the need to stress that you don’t need affirmation why the sulk when you are disagreed with? You have nothing concrete to justify the unfeasibly high regard you have for your own interpretation of events surrounding Stride’s murder.



Im sorry but this is patently biased nonsense. No one is changing the killers habits. It is entirely possible though that events of that night might have forced the killer to have changed them. The possibility that the killer might have been disturbed is a real one. I’m not ideologically wedded to the idea of multiple killers so it makes not one jot of difference to me whether she was killed by the ripper or not. Preconceptions distort. If it’s possible that the killer was disturbed - and it absolutely is possible - then any absolute confidence that she wasn’t a ripper victim falls way short of honest evaluation.



? What would constitute evidence that she was soliciting? Some kind of badge saying ““I’m soliciting”” perhaps? How desperate is this as an argument when you can use the fact that she was reasonably dressed and did occasional char work to prove that a known prostitute loitering around outside a club at 1am wasn’t soliciting. I’m afraid that you will need much more than that.

I cant keep reminding you of the fact that there is nothing upon which to found a theory that includes an interruption, although I realize how structurally important it must be to the current Canonical proposition, so I see why it keeps inserting itself into rebuttal. Im not proposing anything that is not fully supported by the evidence, which is why I take offense at having to argue these facts against something purely speculative. Which an interruption is.

That aside, without too much disagreement one would imagine, I suggest that the first 2 victims matched in almost every category that would be relevant in an investigation...Victimology, Methodology, Skill Sets, Targets, Signatures,... They, being rather unique and eerily similar and within a 2 week span, can be pretty safely assumed to have been committed by the same person or persons. If that's Jack, there is a wealth of information about him in those 2 murders. To then accept Stride means that any information gathered from those first murders should be presumed to have been a result of a specific situation, and only coincidentally similar.

I have never seen the value of trading off what is learned from the first 2 murders so that Stride can then be accommodated within a C5 framework. The first 2 acts gave us lots to use, I suggest using that data rather than insisting I, or anyone else, accept a proposed scenario that is not founded by evidence, but rather by imagination.

As to a diss to cd, since first coming here he has taken offense to my largely black and white and sometimes brusque posts, my post reflected that history more than anything else. He likes the traditional scenario. I don't.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Who is to say that Jack just hated prostitutes and wanted just to kill them? More likely he was a misogynist who hated women in general. If Liz wasn't a prostitute she could just as well have been an easy target in that particular moment, much like his other victims.
Regards Darryl

[c.d.]

If Stride's killer was in fact Jack and he didn't mutilate her because of paranoia (whatever the cause) how could that paranoia be quantified in any way?

It seems extremely simplistic to say the Ripper rips. Stride wasn't ripped. Therefore her killer was not the Ripper.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"You already have cd sitting happily beside you, so as long as you just seek cheers from a peanut gallery youre safe with your stance."

I just want to go on record to say that Herlock and I are just friends despite what rumors you may have heard.

No offense there, Herlock.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You already have cd sitting happily beside you, so as long as you just seek cheers from a peanut gallery youre safe with your stance. I don't need affirmation from anyone as to what the interpretation of data suggests, I have the evidence to cheer for me.

Your insecurities are showing when you need to resort to insults. I was merely being polite. C.D. according to you is part of a ‘peanut gallery’ for simply agreeing with my post. As you feel the need to stress that you don’t need affirmation why the sulk when you are disagreed with? You have nothing concrete to justify the unfeasibly high regard you have for your own interpretation of events surrounding Stride’s murder.

.
Liz Stride wasn't ripped, a killer who definitely ripped was at large. You don't change the killers habits to explain why you cant decide who killed her, you accept what the evidence tells you. One cut, no rips, no evidence she was soliciting The mainstay of JtR.

Im sorry but this is patently biased nonsense. No one is changing the killers habits. It is entirely possible though that events of that night might have forced the killer to have changed them. The possibility that the killer might have been disturbed is a real one. I’m not ideologically wedded to the idea of multiple killers so it makes not one jot of difference to me whether she was killed by the ripper or not. Preconceptions distort. If it’s possible that the killer was disturbed - and it absolutely is possible - then any absolute confidence that she wasn’t a ripper victim falls way short of honest evaluation.

.

no evidence she was soliciting

? What would constitute evidence that she was soliciting? Some kind of badge saying ““I’m soliciting”” perhaps? How desperate is this as an argument when you can use the fact that she was reasonably dressed and did occasional char work to prove that a known prostitute loitering around outside a club at 1am wasn’t soliciting. I’m afraid that you will need much more than that.

[Michael W Richards]

To reply...

No. What I’m suggesting is that there isn’t anywhere near enough evidence to dismiss the suggestion offhand. To be honest I didn’t expect open-mindedness to be something worthy of criticism.

No, unsupported

speculation

without any corroborative evidence on the table is worth criticism IF we are looking for truth here, and that's what an interruption theory is. If you want to propogate a Phantom Menace that your call. Just don't expect guesses to be well received if they had no support whatsoever in any evidence.

Surely you should have noticed by now that I have made no assumption that she was a victim as surely as I have noticed, from the second half of the above sentence, that you have a preconception that there was more than one killer. Naturally you wish to eliminate Stride as a victim. Again, open-mindedness is required.

Jack the Ripper was made famous for his ripping, Liz has none. You can sit on a fence waiting for a miraculous appearance of interruption Herlock...which is the ONLY potential argument for why this ripper didn't rip, I don't have any such problem accepting what is and moving on from there

[B]We have nothing to corroborate the interruption theory, anymore than you have any definitive evidence that disproves it. You appear to be arranging things to accommodate some form of multiple ripper conspiracy theory. The fact that a known prostitute, killed in the open by having her throat cut in the middle of a series of throat cutting prostitute murders occurring within a very restricted radius, when added to the suggestion that if the killer was interrupted (and he could have been) it ties in with the possibility that he went on to kill Eddowes, then we are simply being bloody minded in denying even the possibility.

There are statements that contradict Israel, Louis, Morris and Lave. Some suggest that the management was by the dead woman at 12:45, and if they are correct, anyone that claimed differently either conspired to do so or did so by random accident. The tale that is forwarded to the authorities is by far the most advantageous to Jewish Socialists anarchists at that point in time there, and that warrants closer looks at the times and the content of those stories. Look for yourself. Check the timings. Its clear that some people lied.

There can be no right or wrong on this issue as there is nothing concrete. The only way that anyone can be categorically wrong here is to either say “Stride was definitely a ripper victim” or “Stride definately wasn’t a ripper victim.” I’ll happily avoid either of them.

All I can say is that people, who cant or wont try to determine truth from fiction, suggestion from factual, possibilities from probabilities will happily join you on the I CANT DECIDE WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS Fence.

You already have cd sitting happily beside you, so as long as you just seek cheers from a peanut gallery youre safe with your stance. I don't need affirmation from anyone as to what the interpretation of data suggests, I have the evidence to cheer for me.

Liz Stride wasn't ripped, a killer who definitely ripped was at large. You don't change the killers habits to explain why you cant decide who killed her, you accept what the evidence tells you. One cut, no rips, no evidence she was soliciting. The mainstay of JtR.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

c.d.

Thanks c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What youre suggesting is that despite enough evidence to discount her as Ripper victim, we should be open minded anyway

No. What I’m suggesting is that there isn’t anywhere near enough evidence to dismiss the suggestion offhand. To be honest I didn’t expect open-mindedness to be something worthy of criticism.

. I say that enough time has elapsed with her assumptive inclusion... without any evidence coming forth to corroborate the theorizing, that we should finally accept the face value evidence and look for a motive that isn't restricted to a single, knife wielding madmen killing every street walker murdered

Surely you should have noticed by now that I have made no assumption that she was a victim as surely as I have noticed, from the second half of the above sentence, that you have a preconception that there was more than one killer. Naturally you wish to eliminate Stride as a victim. Again, open-mindedness is required.

The Canon is just guesswork, and Id rather not do that while researching. Facts, truth, Im more interested in those. When you have something to corroborate your possible interruption theory let me know. Even then its still only a possibility. Until then the evidence simply shows that Liz stride was not "ripper-ed".

We have nothing to corroborate the interruption theory, anymore than you have any definitive evidence that disproves it. You appear to be arranging things to accommodate some form of multiple ripper conspiracy theory. The fact that a known prostitute, killed in the open by having her throat cut in the middle of a series of throat cutting prostitute murders occurring within a very restricted radius, when added to the suggestion that if the killer was interrupted (and he could have been) it ties in with the possibility that he went on to kill Eddowes, then we are simply being bloody minded in denying even the possibility.

There can be no right or wrong on this issue as there is nothing concrete. The only way that anyone can be categorically wrong here is to either say “Stride was definitely a ripper victim” or “Stride definately wasn’t a ripper victim.” I’ll happily avoid either of them.

[Michael W Richards]

You appear to be implying that Stride wasn’t engaged in prostitution at the time that she was murdered on the basis that she did char work and that she was presentable dressed? Surely we have to accept that she might very well have been soliciting at the time? Maybe she was hoping for a potential customer from amongst the drunken members leaving the club? Just because that’s where her body was found it doesn’t automatically follow that that was where she had intended to conduct business?

I am implying that exact thing Herlock. Liz had been gainfully employed the past few months "among the Jews" as a cleaner, and here we are, right after a meeting, in a hall that needed cleaning, one that was run by local Jews and attended by same. she is said to be nicely dressed by her lodgemmates, she asked to borrow a lint brush to clean her skirt, she has a new flower arrangement on her jacket, and she has breath fresheners in her hand.

I assure you that if she was soliciting at the time...outside a club that had little or no street traffic for over an hour since the meeting ended, and while she is on private property, she would have been the best dressed and smelling street walker out that night servicing poor dock workers or factory men. The evidence is that she probably hadn't planned on standing in the mud, lifting a boot level heavy skirt, and leaning against a fence that night. She was conscious of appearance and smell...something that indicates to me at least that she wanted to be respectable that night. There is again no evidence...(yeah, again with that evidence thing)... that despite being out all night to that point she solicited anyone.

Again, there is no way that we can connect anarchists with this murder. This attitude has the smack of the Victorian about it I’m afraid. It’s almost like saying that ‘no English gentleman could have committed these crimes but these anarchist types are capable of any kind of deviant behaviour.’

The murder occurred on their property and there was very little action on that street after 12:30. Fanny was at her door "off and on" from 12:30 until 12:50, at which point she stayed there until 1am,...which is one reason to suspect Diemshutz's story, 3 people saying that it was actually 12:45 when they joined Louis by the body...she saw or heard no cart arriving for the 10 minute interval she was at the door continuously. No "lipski" shout, no Pipeman, just the young couple, which is almost certainly the same one Brown saw. Liz is out of sight by witnesses after 12:35 by Inquest data, and by 12:45-46 by Israels story. That leaves a long time to make one cut, and puts Eagle in a position to have seen someone or something at 12:45... about which he said, "I couldn't be sure a body wasnt there".

We have conflicted stories from the club staff, ones that contradicted attendees and the first outside witness to the body, Edward Spooner. We have her on the property off the street for at least 10 minutes by credible witness testimony before Louis says he arrives...yet no mutilations (was he just pondering where to make cuts?).

"These anarchists" attack police with clubs in that yard within 6 months. Seems kind of deviant for law abiding folk. They had a lot at stake if the police believed strongly that the evidence pointed to someone at that club at a the time, so all the evidence they gave suggested otherwise...Israel, Louis and his arrival time, and Eagle uncertainty about stepping around or over a dying woman.

What youre suggesting is that despite enough evidence to discount her as Ripper victim, we should be open minded anyway. I say that enough time has elapsed with her assumptive inclusion... without any evidence coming forth to corroborate the theorizing, that we should finally accept the face value evidence and look for a motive that isn't restricted to a single, knife wielding madmen killing every street walker murdered.

The Canon is just guesswork, and Id rather not do that while researching. Facts, truth, Im more interested in those. When you have something to corroborate your possible interruption theory let me know. Even then its still only a possibility. Until then the evidence simply shows that Liz stride was not "ripper-ed".

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Michael, I agree that there is nothing that should lead us into stating that Stride was definitely a victim of Jack The Ripper. Equally though there is nothing to lead us to any definitive statements to the contrary. We are left to interpret what we know. Something that we have to do without preconceptions of course.

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

You appear to be implying that Stride wasn’t engaged in prostitution at the time that she was murdered on the basis that she did char work and that she was presentable dressed? Surely we have to accept that she might very well have been soliciting at the time? Maybe she was hoping for a potential customer from amongst the drunken members leaving the club? Just because that’s where her body was found it doesn’t automatically follow that that was where she had intended to conduct business?

. and the body was found sometime between 12:45 and 1am,

In the Victorian era this was hardly a ‘respectable’ time for a woman to be out and about on her own. It certainly allows for the possibility that she was actively soliciting.

. 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,

Again, there is no way that we can connect anarchists with this murder. This attitude has the smack of the Victorian about it I’m afraid. It’s almost like saying that ‘no English gentleman could have committed these crimes but these anarchist types are capable of any kind of deviant behaviour.’

.
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.

Of course we shouldn’t define these women by how they were compelled to make ends meet but we cannot conveniently avoid the fact that the 2 that were actually killed were both known prostitutes. Stride was included and remains a possible ripper victim because she was a known prostitute murdered in the open by having her throat cut. We can’t simply dismiss this because it’s inconvenient. Any difference in wounds/mutilations can potentially be explained by the killer being disturbed by Diemschutz. This murder was during a period of throat-cutting prostitution murders that all occurred within a very small radius. Then there was the killing of Eddowes killed within a convenient distant and time frame which might tend us toward an opinion that the ripper was disturbed and so felt unsatisfied.

Again, we all have to admit that there is a possibility that Stride wasn’t a ripper victim but equally we have to admit that she might have been. There are absolutely no reasons to state either conclusion as a fact

[The Baron]

It depends on how you see Jack the ripper was.

For me, Jack was an unknown person/persons who targeted prostitutes with a knife in Whitechapel late 1880s early 1890, without a clear reason.

Stride was an unfortunate, killed in 1888, in Whitechapel, with a knife, the crime and the reason was not solved, and we know for sure that the ripper was at large and active that very night and within an hour or less from Stride murder.

This is why I believe Stride WAS a ripper victim just like Nichols, Tabram, Eddowes, Chapman, Mckenzie and Kelly.

Until any one of them is proven otherwise.


Everyone has his own Jack!

The Baron