The Double Event

[#6.]

As far as today things are known, it seems that:

- The woman Stride was 'walking the streets' that night in Berner street;
- 'Jack' met her as a client;
- 'Jack' had ever any intention to mutilate the woman Stride;
- 'Jack' was disturbed by Diemschitz;
- 'Jack' left Dutfield Yard with an unsatisfied lust of kill;
- 'Jack' fell on the women Eddowes by pure chance;
- The woman Eddowes was in the process of prostituting her body - putting it literally at the disposal of her client - when 'Jack' fell on her with the knife;
- 'Jack' satisfied the lust of killing by disembowelling the woman Eddowes.

That is exactly how I believe the event occured.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Michael!

Jukka,

If he was a Gentile in a largely Jewish populace, he could have stood out as well. "That Finnish boy is insane. Maybe he's the killer. What's he doing in our community anyway?"
My point is, there were more Jews, so if he lived in the area, the chances of him being a Jew are obviously higher. If he was a commuter, well... enter Druitt.

Cheers,

Mike

I didn't deny the possibility of him being a Jew. However, here is another possibility, too: if we take "The Juwes" being written by JtR, he could also have written that in misleading purposes!

All the best
Jukka

[Canucco dei Mergi]

It is of course not only the so called double event that has inspired theorizing along the lines of a sinister, sexual sadist being on the loose. All the murders involved lend themselves quite well to such reasoning - with the possible exception of Stride - and people in general like logical explanations.


Fisherman

Well, Fisherman, it (the SSK modelization of the JtR affair) goes much farther than simply by the 'murders involved'.

Notice that the adjective 'sexual' is only an optional in what I am stating.

Why all this affair goes by a Serial Killer explanation ?
Why do we know that there was in 1888 in London a psychopath killing prostitutes ?
Well...because we have been told so.
And no other reasons than that.
Indeed the SK explanation is just a SK theorization of the case.

You say that this is the logical explanation for the murders involved ?
Which murders ?
Well, the ones experts Ripperologists tell us they must have been committed by a SK I presume:

the ones they choose out from the Whitechapel murders police file using them to point us in the direction of a SK:

- dismissing the disturbing E. Smith (she testified : 'they were three');
- not considering M. Turner (not the same MO they say and then two weapons = two murderers ?);
- avoiding as much as possible E. Stride (lack of signature, not good, not to mention that there could have been two guys there around);
- throwing out of the window the trunck of October and all what comes after MJK.

Wait...but shouldn't things run just the other way round ?
Shouldn't your theory fit as much as possible the events and not these be chosen (and interpreted ) in consequence of your theory ?
I mean, you can't give an explanation to a group of events by taking out four or five episodes out of more than the double and say: you see, I am right!
Because if you do that, well...you just do what you have accused other of having done ridiculizing their theory.

So, not only the SK theory (because it is just that a huge theorization of the case following a preconceived criminal model) in the Jack the Ripper dossier is based on a very small number of episodes out of many more - and their (limited by the information available) interpretation - but it takes support - and is in such way extremely weakened - right by the numbers of murders it must leave out to survive.

Not to mention that even in the 'murders involved' ( the women Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly) it (the SK theory) necessitates a lot of acceptance of little mysteries' explanations like 'this must be a coincidence' or 'that must be a mistake' or even ' that's disturbing indeed but we just cannot say' to find out its way.

You see, Fisherman, to know that a 'madman' has done what was done that year over there in London, puts everything to rest and people are satisfied with that, knowing that only a 'madman' could have done such a thing.
Everybody is happy, the historian, the criminologue, the expert ripperologist, the people and Scotland Yard.
Yes, even Scotland Yard seem happy with this thing, strange to say, since as such 'Jack' turns to be the biggest blow to this venerable institution.

I, for myself, do as Monsieur Hercule Poirot used to do: when something doesn't fit the theory, I discard the theory, not the something, till I fnd a new theory that puts everything in its proper place, from the beginning:

The Whitechapel murders begin with the woman Smith, not with the woman Nichols, this is a fact, and if the SK theorization must discard the woman Smith to survive, I dismiss the SK theory to explain.

Cheers man...sorry, Fisherman.
Canucco dei Mergi.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Sure Mister #6, nobody prevent you from believing what you think is the right thing to believe.
The problem is that the fact you're believing something does not makes things necessarily true.
In our case your belief rest - materially speaking - on nothing.
No evidence, no clue, just a mind willing to believe.
If it makes you happy it makes me double.
Greetings.

[#6.]

Sure Mister #6, nobody prevent you from believing what you think is the right thing to believe.
The problem is that the fact you're believing something does not makes things necessarily true.
In our case your belief rest - materially speaking - on nothing.
No evidence, no clue, just a mind willing to believe.
If it makes you happy it makes me double.
Greetings.

I don't believe I ever stated otherwise. Never in any of my posts have I claimed anything I supported was anything other than a belief.

We all believe in something regarding this case otherwise, why be here debating it? And what fun would it be if we all believed or agreed on the same thing?

[Fisherman]

Whoops, Canuggio - I think you are being a wee bit fast here!

You write:
"Why do we know that there was in 1888 in London a psychopath killing prostitutes ?
Well...because we have been told so.
And no other reasons than that."

...and I´m afraid I´ve never labelled Jack a psychopath. I try NOT to label him anything much at all, though I tend to believe a lot more in him than in Santa Claus. The series of evisceration murders is of such an unusual character and caliber that the reasonable thing to do is to conclude that these murders were carried out by the same man.

"You say that this is the logical explanation for the murders"

Actually, I did not - what I said was that people like their explanations logical, that being the reason for the urge to label the Ripper at all.

"You see, Fisherman, to know that a 'madman' has done what was done that year over there in London, puts everything to rest and people are satisfied with that, knowing that only a 'madman' could have done such a thing.
Everybody is happy, the historian, the criminologue, the expert ripperologist, the people and Scotland Yard."

Not at all. Extend your journey through Casebook a little, and you will soon find out that many a Ripperologist do NOT subscribe to the theory that Jack was mad.

"The Whitechapel murders begin with the woman Smith, not with the woman Nichols, this is a fact, and if the SK theorization must discard the woman Smith to survive, I dismiss the SK theory to explain"

The Whitechapel murders was never a collection of murders that anyone could ascribe to any hand or hands. Therefore the label in itself is of extremely limited use. And your reasoning on the effects to a serial killer theory of discarding Smith is something that subsequentially could hold all the water in the Pacific Ocean - or not a drop of it. If you ask me, you´ll end up dry.

The best,
Fisherman

[celee]

Hi,

The double event, did Jack the ripper kill both Stride and Eddowes? I feel he did. The Detectives who worked the case believed so and I see no reason to doubt them. However, in the case of Stride, I feel the the Ripper Killed Stride right after Schwartz saw him attack her. I do not believe he waited around. I feel he was long gone by the time Diemschutz arrived. He simply would not have stuck around. Also, the Ripper would of had plenty of time to mutilate the body befor being scared off by Diemschutz. Had he waited, some mutilation would have taken place. Jack had more time to locate his second victim then some claim.

A big debate, I guess, has been who is more likely to have been Andersons witness, Schwartz or Lawende. I saw a show about the Ripper murders once, that can now be seen on youtube, were the experts clearly point the finger at Schwartz. One expert claimed that Schwartz was the witness, and this is important because if you believe Stride was atacked twice in the same night by two different men, fifteen minutes apart, that would be a stretch. I agree, I do not believe Stride was attacked twice in that short a time. If Schwartz saw the Ripper, I feel the Ripper killed her Straight away after being spotted by him. Here is the rub, I think that any rational Detective would also feel that way. I find it hard to understand why the Detectives would believe that the Ripper would stick around after being spotted with Liz. Logic would tells us that he cut her throat and got out of there as quick as possible. I am led to believe that the Detectives doubted Schwartz.

Lawende appears to be the witness that the Detectives trusted the most and I feel that Andersons witness would have to be the one that most Detectives doubted. Since I believe Anderson was telling the truth and he had a witness that identified the Ripper. I feel his witness was Schwartz.

The time frame with the Eddowes murder bothers me. Eight minutes to kill, mutilate, and get away. The Ripper had to be lucky. Or did he. I think we have a case of a PC not being honest about the times he walks his beat or a case of witnesses either being mistaken about the time or mistaken about seeing Eddowes at all.

I feel that since the women led Jack to the place that they were killed, then it must have been a place that they were familiar with and felt comfortable with. Remember they did not want to get caught either.

Your friend, Brad

[Fisherman]

Brad writes:

"The Detectives who worked the case believed so"

The Detectives who worked the case thought so.
The Detectives who worked the case knew so.
The Detectives who worked the case hoped so.
The Detectives who worked the case feared so.
The Detectives who worked the case concluded so.
The Detectives who worked the case guessed so.
The Detectives who worked the case were led to believe so.
The Detectives who worked the case chanced so.
The Detectives who worked the case reasoned so.

Take your pick! But be careful with option 2...

The best,
Fisherman

[celee]

Hi Fisherman,

Okay, everything is possible and Jack the ripper could have killed 5 or 5,000 women. However, at some point, when studing the case, a person should try and make a guess. A logical guess. Macnaghten wrote, "Now the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims & 5 victims only" It is clear that the majority of the investigating officers believed that Liz stride was a Ripper victim. So, I choose to accept this as fact. I understand that there are those that will argue.

I do not understand why it is generally accepted that Jack the ripper was scared away by the arival of Diemshultz. If Shwartz actually saw Jack attack Sride, to me, it is a logical assumption that after being spotted Jack would have made hast his escape. Does anyone really believe that Jack would have waited around taking the chance of being caught? I find it hard to believe that the investigating officers believed this scenario. I doubt they did. If they believed that Shwartz was telling the truth, then I doubt that they thought Jack was scared off by the Carter. If they doubted Shwartz they may well have thought Jack was scared away by Diemshultz. I feel Anderson's witness was doubted by most of the investigators, so, I believe his witness was Shwartz.

If Shwartz did see the attack and the Ripper waited around untill the arival of Diemshultz then were are the mutilations? Strides body would have been mutilated. The Ripper would have had more alone time with Stride then what some believe he had with Eddowes. There would have been some mutilations.

Alot of what is nomally accepted as fact I do not agree with. It simply does not make sence. However this thread is about the double event.

Your friend, Brad

[GregBaron]

Stride.......

Brad,

Schwartz's description doesn't sound like JTR to me. Pulling her toward the street and throwing her down as she emits 3 mild cries. This seems more like an aquaintance or angry John. The whole Lipski thing also seems reckless for one who was very sly. There are a couple of excellent dissertations on Stride asserting a non JTR culprit. If this brute (broad shoulders) wasn't JTR then JTR certainly did slip in quickly and disappear swiftly in which case Diemshultz may have interrupted him. This whole affair may be the most confounding in the entire saga. Speculation runs rampant.............

Sincerely,

Greg

[celee]

Hi Greg,

It is possible that Diemshultz did scare the Ripper off if he attacked Stride after Shwartz saw her being attacked or if Shwartz was not telling the truth.

There are alot of well written dissertations about alot of subjects here at the casebook. I understand alot of people do feel Stride was not a Ripper victim and I see their argument.

Shwartz description seems consitent with the other witnesses that claim to get a look at the Ripper.

If Shwartz saw the Ripper attack Stride then Liz put up a struggle and good for her. I also think that Kelly put up a fight and managed to get a cry of Oh murder.

Your friend, Brad

[kensei]

Shwartz description seems consitent with the other witnesses that claim to get a look at the Ripper.

If Shwartz saw the Ripper attack Stride then Liz put up a struggle and good for her.

Your friend, Brad

Just to throw out some speculation- Let's say Liz was indeed a Ripper victim and the man Schwartz saw was the Ripper. Liz's reaction to being thrown down was not that of someone who thought she was about to be murdered but that of one who thought she was about to get a beating, something she was no stranger to as she had recently walked out on an abusive man. Further, the Ripper is thought by many to have strangled his victims unconscious before he used his knife. Is it possible that Liz, fed up with being a victim of physical abuse, fought back for long enough after Schwartz ran off to make the timeline at least a little more agreeable for Diemshutz to find her dead at 1:00?

But then again, if that's the case it's not likely she would have still been holding on to her bag of caschews. Oh, who knows?

[Monty]

Strides reaction was that of someone who is used to being struck.

For me she wasnt reacting like that cos she knew him, though she may have done. She reacted as a dog who is used to being beaten reacts, she cowered in hopes the attack would end swiftly and avoid any later retrubution should she draw attention.

Monty

[KatBradshaw]

I remain unconvinced of Liz being a Ripper victim but have no real evidence to back this up but my gut and as I have a terrible taste in men my gut is not that reliable.

[perrymason]

This is not likely. It is most likely, as the area was heavily populated by Jews, that he was Jewish. It's a simple matter of numbers, as well as the graffiti being more likely pro-Jew.

If the killer lived on Goulston, it would have been a simple matter for him to take the organs into his room, prepare them for consumption, and then pop down to the street to leave the apron near the graffiti that he either had written earlier that day, or had read and liked. This seems the most likely scenario as the coincidence of apron and graffiti is quite difficult to reconcile, though not impossible.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

The fact that the writing is left by dwellings that are almost 100% Jewish, and that it mentions the "Juwes/Juewes" not being blamed for something, and the word Jews is mispelled, cumulatively adds up to a likely taunt or accusation, by someone who didnt know how to spell Jew, nor did he use a Hebraic spelling.......

I dont see how it could be interpreted as a pro Judiasm sentiment, and a pro Judaic message by Jewish residents homes wouldnt cause Warren any issues.

It was treated as inflammatory. Thats not a "supportive" of Jews interpretation I would think.

Best regards Mike.