Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Many Victims Were There?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thank you for the reply.
    Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
    ---------------
    Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
    ---------------

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      3 Nichols.chapman.Eddowes

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Im on the fence about Eddowes, by the circumstantial evidence and the skills shown.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        But that third woman was so obviously unconnected with any of the Whitechapel victims that I fail to see why you routinely have to wheel her in, as if her case is relevant to anything at all.
        Its not important that it was unconnected to these alleged crimes Caz, its a de facto example that other people got their throats cut at the very same time as Ripper victims got their throat cuts. VERY relevant when looking at Liz Stride. This pretense that ONLY Jack cuts throats at that place in time is obviously incorrect, and that alone suggests that other women might also have been killed for other reasons than for mutilating their abdomen pm. like Stride, for example.

        Not knowing the Motive doesnt eliminate one. Knowing a Motive within a series creates a profile, (pm mutilation), which Stride, again, doesnt fit. Instead of cramming the square block into the round hole, just use whats there.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Of course it’s irrelevant. No one has suggested that only the ripper cut throats but it’s narrowed down by the fact that Stride was possibly killed by someone that she didn’t know, and that she was a prostitute (whether full or part-time) and that her murder took place outdoors and in the early hours. And that the killer evaded capture. And that these took place within a small area. Stride came from the same class as the other victims, she engaged in prostitution, she was killed in the same small area, on the street. To say that she doesn’t ‘fit’ is bizarre.

          ...

          So instead of taking the entirely reasoned and reasonable view that Stride might or might not have been a victim we should completely eliminate an entirely plausible possibility (that the killer might have been interrupted) and so skew our opinion one way? This is completely illogical. Acknowledging reasonable possibilities however is sensible.
          Regards

          Herlock



          “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

          ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

          Comment


          • What if there had been another victim? Let's say that a women was found dead in a street in mid October. She was a known prostitute and she'd had her throat cut but there was no mutilations. Could we assume that she wasn't a ripper victim? We had no 'Diemschutz figure' as a potential interrupter? I'd say, no more than we could assume that she was a victim because she was a prostitute who had her throat cut in the street. The only thing 'different' was the lack of mutilations but we couldn't state for a fact that the killer wasn't interrupted or spooked by someone or something.
            So this is the difference in approach. We can either say

            a) she might possibly have been a ripper victim but the killer might have been disturbed by someone or something.

            or,

            b) no mutilations so definitely not Ripper.

            I think that most would say that a) is the reasonable, reasoned approach.

            Now when we consider Stride we can actually factor in a known possible interrupter (Diemschutz) so its entirely reasonable to accept the possibility of an interrupted Ripper killing whilst at the same time accepting that she might not have been a ripper victim. To deny this possibility suggests a preconception or a person who, for whatever reason, seeks to eliminate Stride as a potential victim.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-19-2021, 08:27 PM.
            Regards

            Herlock



            “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

            ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              Of course it’s irrelevant. No one has suggested that only the ripper cut throats but it’s narrowed down by the fact that Stride was possibly killed by someone that she didn’t know, and that she was a prostitute (whether full or part-time) and that her murder took place outdoors and in the early hours. And that the killer evaded capture. And that these took place within a small area. Stride came from the same class as the other victims, she engaged in prostitution, she was killed in the same small area, on the street. To say that she doesn’t ‘fit’ is bizarre.

              Are you speaking about the Liz Stride that had been gainfully employed "among the Jews" for some time prior to this night, the one that was seen talking to men but not going off with any of them, the one who left her lodgings with enough money for her doss and a suggestion she was staying elsewhere that night, the one with mints for her breath and a new flower on her jacket? The one with a boottop length skirt on? Or the one that had herself removed from an active prostitute register in Goteborg before coming to London as a nanny?
              ...

              So instead of taking the entirely reasoned and reasonable view that Stride might or might not have been a victim we should completely eliminate an entirely plausible possibility (that the killer might have been interrupted) and so skew our opinion one way? This is completely illogical. Acknowledging reasonable possibilities however is sensible.

              The reason to exclude Liz Stride from a series of murders with abdominal mutilation is abundantly clear by the physical evidencee alone, the circumstantial evidence suggests that the killer was unseen on the street from 12:35 until he kills, which then suggests the killer was off the street with ease of access to the soon to be victim. FGrom the same property on which she is found is likely.
              I just follow the veidence, you force it into whatever shape makes it palatable for you.

              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Now when we consider Stride we can actually factor in a known possible interrupter (Diemschutz) so its entirely reasonable to accept the possibility of an interrupted Ripper killing whilst at the same time accepting that she might not have been a ripper victim. To deny this possibility suggests a preconception or a person who, for whatever reason, seeks to eliminate Stride as a potential victim.
                You continue to suggest a scenario that has no basis in known evidence, and your explanation for doing so is your opinion that there would not necessarily be any evidence of an act being interrupted. To be clear, an interruption implies something begun but left incomplete. Like the stripping of Marys thighs for example, an action that seems to indicate a desire to strip flesh from bone, yet left unfulfilled on her left leg. Had someone intended Liz further harm, like a serial abdominal mutilator would have, there would be a physical expression of that desire, no matter how minute or subtle. She would have been turned on her back, for a blatant example. Skirts lifted..like the others. Some evidence the killer at least touched the deceased since she was dropped to the ground, likely with the killer holding her by the scarf while cutting and then releasing his hold. Someone seen fleeing. Something would indicate further intent. The absence of any such evidence makes entertaining an idea of an interruption frivolous and not conducive to producing any truths about this murder. We can entertain ourselves forever imaging scenarios, often because people want to get to a finish line they anticipated. Like a Rippers guilt.

                However if you want real truth and answers, you have to use what is there and leave your imagination and entertainment factors out of it.

                I believe that there is enough evidence to make some fundamental conclusions to the question of How Stride dies and one is that she is killed by someone from that property who wanted only to cut her once. There is no credible witness that sees anyone in that street near the gates from 12:35 until 12:55-56 when someone passes by. No-one is seen from that time on until after 1, by neither the young couple or Fanny Mortimer. The physical evidence is self explanatory, a single cut, drawn across the throat, with the intent of inflicting a mortal injury.
                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 04-20-2021, 11:47 AM.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                  Now I don't think Michael wanted you to do that.

                  Naughty Al.

                  She was a woman who was murdered by a man. That's all Michael sees when he needs a like-for-like comparison between Mrs Brown and the two Whitechapel victims who died on the same night. But he will bend over backwards to avoid any points of comparison between Stride and Eddowes.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Its not important that it was unconnected to these alleged crimes Caz, its a de facto example that other people got their throats cut at the very same time as Ripper victims got their throat cuts. VERY relevant when looking at Liz Stride. This pretense that ONLY Jack cuts throats at that place in time is obviously incorrect, and that alone suggests that other women might also have been killed for other reasons than for mutilating their abdomen pm. like Stride, for example.

                    Not knowing the Motive doesnt eliminate one. Knowing a Motive within a series creates a profile, (pm mutilation), which Stride, again, doesnt fit. Instead of cramming the square block into the round hole, just use whats there.
                    Are you seriously trying to argue that because a husband murdered his wife elsewhere in London on the same night as Stride and Eddowes were murdered, that makes it more likely that Stride and Eddowes were killed by different men, than if Mr and Mrs Brown had been happily married? We must forget all about the similarities between two of these murders, and ignore the total dissimilarity with the Brown case, yet rely on this one to tell us that all three were unconnected?

                    And I thought the club conspiracy idea was a complete non-starter...
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      Now I don't think Michael wanted you to do that.

                      Naughty Al.

                      She was a woman who was murdered by a man. That's all Michael sees when he needs a like-for-like comparison between Mrs Brown and the two Whitechapel victims who died on the same night. But he will bend over backwards to avoid any points of comparison between Stride and Eddowes.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Hi Caz
                      The only comparison between the murder of Stride and Eddowes is that they both occurred on the same night!

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post

                        Now I don't think Michael wanted you to do that.

                        Naughty Al.

                        She was a woman who was murdered by a man. That's all Michael sees when he needs a like-for-like comparison between Mrs Brown and the two Whitechapel victims who died on the same night. But he will bend over backwards to avoid any points of comparison between Stride and Eddowes.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Hi Caz,

                        Nothing naughty intended, just pointing Fiver in the right direction.

                        I'd say the bigger comparison is Chapman and Eddowes, it's hard to see how they're not connected? Nose cuts? It's a minor difference that doesn't outweigh the similarities.

                        Of course, Issenschmidt was tucked up in the sanitarium at that point.
                        Thems the Vagaries.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          Are you seriously trying to argue that because a husband murdered his wife elsewhere in London on the same night as Stride and Eddowes were murdered, that makes it more likely that Stride and Eddowes were killed by different men, than if Mr and Mrs Brown had been happily married? We must forget all about the similarities between two of these murders, and ignore the total dissimilarity with the Brown case, yet rely on this one to tell us that all three were unconnected?

                          And I thought the club conspiracy idea was a complete non-starter...
                          I didnt say that. I said Browns slitting his wifes throat with a knife on the same night as 2 other women had that done is empirical proof that other men aside from Jack slit womens throats with knives at that time in that area. Since only 1 woman of 3 had abdominal mutilation one would think it shouldnt be so hard to accept that not only Jack the serial abdominal mutilator killed with knives...but of course you cant have that. All in, right? Jack or nothing. You probably feel its more likely that Stride fell on a blade than someone other than Jack killed her.

                          Oh yeah, of course there was that interruption...
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 04-20-2021, 02:11 PM.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • If there was a league table for nonsense Michael you would be in a league of your own.

                            Regards

                            Herlock



                            “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                            ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Hi Caz
                              The only comparison between the murder of Stride and Eddowes is that they both occurred on the same night!

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              How people argue otherwise is always a source of wonder.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                I just follow the veidence, you force it into whatever shape makes it palatable for you.
                                Where is your evidence that Stride's killer knew her well enough to know what her intentions were that night, or any other night? It's more about a killer's perception of his victim, that dictates his behaviour towards her.

                                Assuming he did come from inside the club to kill her, why would that necessarily rule him out as the ripper? There was no way he could safely do anything beyond cutting her throat there in any case, knowing how many people were in the club, or still coming and going. But still he had the urge to kill, and little choice but to leave her where she lay, to be found within minutes.

                                You see a man who wasn't a murderer until, for some unknown reason, he chose to cut Stride's throat, in a location he could be associated with. Yet he was able to kill with speed and efficiency, even in this busy location, and managed to escape without being seen near the scene. I would love to know if you have an actual suspect in mind for this murder, who ticks all the boxes you have constructed.

                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X