Who Was Anderson’s Witness?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trev,

The 21st century gives us plenty of hindsight regarding real convicted killers - not robots - who did not leave identical wounds or injuries on each of their victims.

Do you still believe Colin Stagg stabbed Rachel Nickell 49 times on Wimbledon Common in 1992, for instance, because you cannot accept that one man, Robert Napper, could have inflicted such different knife wounds on two women - Nickell and Samantha Bisset, who was mutilated MJK style, the following year in her own home?

That's just one example of a violent offender not doing as he was told by the profilers and retired or armchair detectives who think they know better.

Real criminals give us the best insight into what real criminals are capable of.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you for your input, but there is more to the Stride murder than just the throat cutting, which makes it different from the others and to me suggests a different killer.

and we shouldnt fall into the trap of comparing the crimes of modern day serial killers to those of 1888.

As to comparing the different murders of Robert Napper, Rachel Nickell was murdered outside in daylight, the other two murders were inside where he had more time with the victims.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

The Victimology? Is there any direct evidence that just as the 2 women who are assumed to be killed by Jack prior to Liz Stride that Liz was also actively soliciting? I suppose you consider that a trivial characteristic, when in fact it enabled the killer to have the women facilitate what he needed. Some modicum of privacy and time to cut. It allowed a stranger to get the victims into the dark, because thats where their trade takes place.

If you at least accept that it was probably Nichols and Chapman who chose their final destinations, if they were indeed both 'actively soliciting' and took their killer somewhere that suited their purpose, then it shouldn't take a lot of effort to accept that Dutfield's Yard was where Stride chose to be when she was murdered. That doesn't tell us what her purpose was in being there, nor what her killer supposed it might be. From his point of view, ripper or not, she could have been there in the hope of finding a paying customer, or to get work at the club, or even to meet a friend. We just don't know, and more importantly neither would he have known unless she spelled it out for him.

If Stride, together with her choice of final destination, would have been in any way unsuited to a successful ripper murder and mutilation - too many people around, too dark, victim not compliant - to name but three potential obstacles, it wouldn't have happened, regardless of where the ripper was when this woman breathed her last. If he was there in Dutfield's Yard with her, he'd have had no choice but to leave her alive or dead, but unripped.

If Stride's choice of location had been an ideal one for another ripper murder, and especially if she had mentioned to anyone an intention to solicit that evening, you would have had a much sounder argument for hers not being connected with the second murder that night.

As it is, you seem to be under the misapprehension that the ripper had only to snap his fingers and any woman out alone on the street could magically be transported to a location that perfectly suited his purposes, and therefore Stride wasn't killed by him, or she'd have ended up precisely where he needed her to be for another successful ripping.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Trev,

The 21st century gives us plenty of hindsight regarding real convicted killers - not robots - who did not leave identical wounds or injuries on each of their victims.

Do you still believe Colin Stagg stabbed Rachel Nickell 49 times on Wimbledon Common in 1992, for instance, because you cannot accept that one man, Robert Napper, could have inflicted such different knife wounds on two women - Nickell and Samantha Bisset, who was mutilated MJK style, the following year in her own home?

That's just one example of a violent offender not doing as he was told by the profilers and retired or armchair detectives who think they know better.

Hi Caz,
Coming as his crimes did only a few years after the centenery, do you think that Napper might have been familiar with the Ripper crimes, and perhaps even inspired by them?

[Scott Nelson]

I’m always concerned when people say “the killer would have done this…” or “well he did x at the y crime scene therefore he must have done x at the z crime scene.” There can be traits of course but I’m wary of treating killers as if they are working to some kind of handbook. Circumstances change, unexpected things occur, so many things can lead to differences which might lead to erroneous conclusions.

So true. The mindset of the killer, or potential killer, can vary from situation to situation.

[Guest]

I agree but Stride was probably alert and had second thoughts about it, I reckon she sensed she was in danger and that's why she did not to go in that yard with him.

If everyone at that time was thinking this manic was this Jewish guy they called leather apron. Then I don't think the likes of Stride, Eddows or Kelly would have been comfortable enough to soliciting with the Jewish suspects on our list, particularly who they felt were odd.

For me Jack the Ripper was someone they didn't expect was a threat.

But the problem is these women were so impoverised and desperate that we can't know that for sure.

[Darryl Kenyon]

When Paul Britton psychology profiler was shown Nappers crimes he didn't think they were related to the killing of Rachel Nickel, even down to the killing of Samantha Bissett and the close proximity of the Green chain rapes. The police believed him.
Samantha's young girl Jazmine was smothered and tragically killed. Rachel's young boy Alex was left alive. Samantha was disembowelled, Rachel was not. Samantha killed in her home, Rachel out in the open.
Perhaps Samantha was mutilated and parts taken away with young Jazmine woken and killed because he had time to do those terrible things .Whereas with Rachel he did not.
But the victimology is the nearly the same . Two young mothers with children, one killed on a common , one whose house backed on to a common. Both in south London within an hours drive of each other. Both attacked and repeatedly stabbed with a knife and sexually assaulted.

1888 - Two middle aged women who had fallen on hard times, both probably strangled and their throats cut with a knife. In the same district in a time range of other murders [ during the night ], and within an hour of each other.
It would be totally foolhardy to rule one of them out because of a lack of mutilation and one cut instead of two when there is the very real possibility that the killer was interrupted by Diemschultz or otherwise.
Regards Darryl

[Guest]

Exactly, but I wonder what was the time difference was between Schwartz and Diemshultz?

If it was me killing Stride and saw that Schwartz guy catch me in the act, then I bet I would been several streets away at least before Diemshultz guy rocked up. I would have hussled, I tell you that now.

[Guest]

So I read a few timelines.
Schwartz said he was there approx 0045,
and Diemshultz found body at approx 0105
and surgeon Blackwell thought she was dead for approx 20 to 30 mind at approx 0115,
and Eddows was found at 0144hrs. This sound right?

[Aethelwulf]

I’m always concerned when people say “the killer would have done this…” or “well he did x at the y crime scene therefore he must have done x at the z crime scene.” There can be traits of course but I’m wary of treating killers as if they are working to some kind of handbook. Circumstances change, unexpected things occur, so many things can lead to differences which might lead to erroneous conclusions.

This is a very good point and, not wanting to derail the thread, is exactly what I've been saying about Ellen Bury. Yes there are differences but I think the special circumstances can easily explain those. What really counts is that if you strip everything back, ultimately, he let the cat out of the bag with that one injury that is so incredibly specific and ties him to his prior actions with Eddowes. Apologies, back to the witness stuff.

[c.d.]

Exactly, but I wonder what was the time difference was between Schwartz and Diemshultz?

If it was me killing Stride and saw that Schwartz guy catch me in the act, then I bet I would been several streets away at least before Diemshultz guy rocked up. I would have hussled, I tell you that now.

Hello Wiggins,

I don't believe that I have addressed you before. Welcome to the boards.

Schwartz never caught anyone in the act of killing Stride. He only saw a woman being pushed. Stride was clearly alive when he left the scene which is why Swanson allowed for the possibility of her killer coming along after the B.S. man left.

c.d.

[Guest]

Also critical Levy and his mates said they saw Eddiows with that guy off mitre square at 0135

So if this is right, even with the best Will in the world, considering the distance and all that, it was Schwartz who stopped the mutilation and incidentally in the mind of our sick madman was the Juwe who should not be blamed for nothing.

[Guest]

Thanks C.D but I read the contemporary reports and I read the timeline and I read nothing about Stride still being alive when Schwartz fled the scene. I see a violent assault and shortly after a women with her throat cut.

[c.d.]

Thanks C.D but I read the contemporary reports and I read the timeline and I read nothing about Stride still being alive when Schwartz fled the scene. I see a violent assault and shortly after a women with her throat cut.

You need to read Swanson's report. This "violent assault" as you describe it is your interpretation of events but Schwartz only saw a woman being pushed. No more. She had to have been alive when Schwartz left the scene or Swanson would not have allowed for the possibility of another killer coming along. In other words, Swanson was speculating that Schwartz only saw a street hassle not a murder.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Wiggins,

Stride's body was not found where Schwartz said he saw her with the B.S. man. So how did she end up where she did if she were killed on the street? Would the B.S. man have carried her? Not a smart move assuming Schwartz ran off to find the nearest P.C.

c.d.

[Guest]

We are talking a matter of minutes, between the witness statements. Now I can imagine it was a tough doos prostituting in the autumn of 1888 in Whitechapel but still, to be assulted and then murdered by two different people would be extraordinary.

Looking at the timeline of the witnesses statements and the sequence of events, anyone who thinks it was a double murder, which is most rational people, must also accept that it was Schwartz who interrupted the killer of stride and caused Jack to sod off quickly.