John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

So, the A.F.'s account places the murder at 12:45ish, but it places the discovery by Diemshitz at 1:00ish (that's a pretty conventional time line, with the murder occuring some time prior to her discovery, and would fit well with Schwartz's statements. It would contradict those who believe it was Diemshitz's arrival that spooked JtR into hiding then leaving, which would place both the murder and the discovery at 1:00ish.

- Jeff

It would depend on why the author of that article came to believe Liz was murdered around 12:45.

What was the reasoning for this? Is it compelling reasoning?

[Michael W Richards]

It would depend on why the author of that article came to believe Liz was murdered around 12:45.

What was the reasoning for this? Is it compelling reasoning?

Thats a reasonable question and the only answer I can offer is because people knew a body was there at that time. Like Issac K says, and Heschberg, and this unknown fella Gillen. What Jeff neglected to address was that Fanny Mortimer said she was at her door at the same time Louis says he arrived. She stated she was at her door from 12:50 until 1. We know she was there during that period because she saw Goldstein. I would imagine Wess isnt going to print something that contradicts the time Louis gives at the Inquest, nor was he going to suggest Louis was less than open and honest.

No-one saw Louis arrive, no one saw Eagle return, no one saw Israel, or BSM or Pipeman or Liz Stride on the street after 12:35. But several people stated they saw a dead woman in the passageway around 12:40-12:45.

When you have statements that when taken individually contradict other statements made that are corroborated by several people, you need to assess why there are 2 or 3 people whose stories dont match. Well, the people whose stories dont match are ALL employed by the club, and their continued paychecks and continued existence of that club relies on the police not suspecting they were involved at all in this crime.

So you can accept the premise that employees would "spin" the details to favour the clubs innocence, or not. But you cant deny that without some explanation, be it mine or another, some people lied. This wasnt about non-synchronized timepieces as some have suggested, not when there is a 15-20 minute variance. So, Who has the motivation to? People who make money from an open club. I repeat Im not suggesting any of the club staff killed Liz, although I cannot rule that out, but I am suggesting that a storyline exists that works with Fanny, the Young Couple, Issac K, Heschberg, Gillen, PC Lamb, and Johnson and Blackwell. None of who had anything to lose by just telling the truth.

Personally I believe the most powerful statement is from Issac K, someone who helped out around the club and was Louis's step and fetch it guy. He was 17 at the time and his statement is very illuminating. "About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was."

[Fleetwood Mac]

But you cant deny that without some explanation, be it mine or another, some people lied.

Some very interesting studies have been undertaken looking at murder cases and police interviews of suspects.

These studies have unearthed much implication on behalf of the police and from there it is repeated by journalists, and these implied conclusions become received wisdom among the wider public.

What I mean by that, is the suspects did not state that which became received wisdom: the police implied it. Not necessarily maliciously, but more through human failings.

These are modern day studies and they have been used to progress policing methods.

So, not only do we have a series of confusing and somewhat contradictory statements, there is form for parts of statements being implied, whether that be by the police or journalists; and so we can't be sure that these statements are a fair reflection of what the witnesses actually stated.

In the event the TOD was approx. 12.45, then that would make it more interesting to me because PC Smith's man becomes more important. Like yourself, however, I've read all of the witness statements and you simply cannot make head nor tail of them when viewed together.

The most reasonable interpretation, is the one that places Dr Blackwell at the centre of it but as you say that is not without problem. I don't think anybody here can say with any confidence that they have a good idea what went on between 12.30 and 1, and keep a straight face at the same time.

[Michael W Richards]

Some very interesting studies have been undertaken looking at murder cases and police interviews of suspects.

These studies have unearthed much implication on behalf of the police and from there it is repeated by journalists, and these implied conclusions become received wisdom among the wider public.

What I mean by that, is the suspects did not state that which became received wisdom: the police implied it. Not necessarily maliciously, but more through human failings.

These are modern day studies and they have been used to progress policing methods.

So, not only do we have a series of confusing and somewhat contradictory statements, there is form for parts of statements being implied, whether that be by the police or journalists; and so we can't be sure that these statements are a fair reflection of what the witnesses actually stated.

In the event the TOD was approx. 12.45, then that would make it more interesting to me because PC Smith's man becomes more important. Like yourself, however, I've read all of the witness statements and you simply cannot make head nor tail of them when viewed together.

The most reasonable interpretation, is the one that places Dr Blackwell at the centre of it but as you say that is not without problem. I don't think anybody here can say with any confidence that they have a good idea what went on between 12.30 and 1, and keep a straight face at the same time.

I appreciate your breakdown above, and your admission that like me, its impossible to derive any sound conclusions using all the statements. But I am starting to feel wrong for having hijacked this thread for a while, so perhaps Ill start something in a more appropriate area to follow this further. My apologies.

[JeffHamm]

It would depend on why the author of that article came to believe Liz was murdered around 12:45.

What was the reasoning for this? Is it compelling reasoning?

Probably the Schwartz story of seeing her assaulted around 12:45 had something to do with it. I believe some one from the club has been suggested as being his translator, so the club surely os aware if his story.

There were other pointers to a murder prior to Deimshitz arrival, so no great mystery.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Probably the Schwartz story of seeing her assaulted around 12:45 had something to do with it. I believe some one from the club has been suggested as being his translator, so the club surely os aware if his story.

There were other pointers to a murder prior to Deimshitz arrival, so no great mystery.

- Jeff

Well, this is implied and so 'probably' is open to debate.

And, ultimately, what we have here is not adding weight to the proposition of a 12.45am murder. It's merely the opinion of one person, whose reasoning ability may or might not be lacking, and as far as we know didn't take into account all of the pertinent details.

[JeffHamm]

Well, this is implied and so 'probably' is open to debate.

And, ultimately, what we have here is not adding weight to the proposition of a 12.45am murder. It's merely the opinion of one person, whose reasoning ability may or might not be lacking, and as far as we know didn't take into account all of the pertinent details.

Hi FM,

Sorry, I should have phrased that differently as "possibly" not "probably". It was the first thing that came to my mind. I just checked the inquest testimony for Dr. Blackwell, and he states that he arrived at 1:16 (he checked his watch upon arrival).

He also testified:

Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived.

Which means at the inquest he was saying she was killed between 12:46 and 12:56 type thing. Obviously, we know such estimates are far less reliable than that, but even today that is not how most people view medical evidence and they attribute to it a degree of confidence that is not warranted.

That aside, the author of the A.F. may have been aware of this information at the time the article was written, and so in their article just listed an easy time for people to benchmark to (12:45, rather than something odd like 12:46, or to give a range, etc).

I'm not sure of the date for the A.F. article, when it was printed, but obviously if it's after the inquest when Dr. B. testified, then that seems like a reasonable option to consider as well (particularly as that time corresponds to Schwartz's statement, which I think there is good reason for the club to be aware of if a member really did act as his interpreter as I recall some suggesting in the past). If the article was written before the inquest, then I guess it depends upon whether or not there is other evidence indicating that Dr. B's opinion was known to the press? If not, then I think that re-elevates Schwartz as a reasonable source, otherwise I think either, or in combination, there's a fairly readily available explanation.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi FM,

Sorry, I should have phrased that differently as "possibly" not "probably". It was the first thing that came to my mind. I just checked the inquest testimony for Dr. Blackwell, and he states that he arrived at 1:16 (he checked his watch upon arrival).

He also testified:

Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived.

Which means at the inquest he was saying she was killed between 12:46 and 12:56 type thing. Obviously, we know such estimates are far less reliable than that, but even today that is not how most people view medical evidence and they attribute to it a degree of confidence that is not warranted.

That aside, the author of the A.F. may have been aware of this information at the time the article was written, and so in their article just listed an easy time for people to benchmark to (12:45, rather than something odd like 12:46, or to give a range, etc).

I'm not sure of the date for the A.F. article, when it was printed, but obviously if it's after the inquest when Dr. B. testified, then that seems like a reasonable option to consider as well (particularly as that time corresponds to Schwartz's statement, which I think there is good reason for the club to be aware of if a member really did act as his interpreter as I recall some suggesting in the past). If the article was written before the inquest, then I guess it depends upon whether or not there is other evidence indicating that Dr. B's opinion was known to the press? If not, then I think that re-elevates Schwartz as a reasonable source, otherwise I think either, or in combination, there's a fairly readily available explanation.

- Jeff

I think we should not dismiss the fact that Stride could have been soliciting outside the club, and as such she would have likely as not propositioned men passing by and therefore could have been seen accosting several men in a short space of time, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one of the men she accosted declined her offer and simply pushed her aside and she fell to the ground and he went on his way.

One witness describes a female who it is suggested was Stride having an argument with a man and describes it as a domestic argument, which might be a pointer to Michael Kidney who she had been in a relationship for some time with but they had recently broken up. As her murder has many dissimilarities to the other murders I think he must be considered as a person of interest in her murder.

There are conflicts in the witnesses' inquest testimony to that of Kidney as to when she had the argument with him and when she left him.

Catherine Lane - Telegraph Inquest report
[Coroner] Did you speak to her last week?
[CL] On Thursday and Saturday.
[Coroner] At what time did you see her first on Thursday?
[CL] Between ten and eleven o'clock.
[Coroner] Did she explain why she was coming back?
[CL] She said she had had a few words with the man she was living with.


Michael Kidney inquest testimony Telegraph
[Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday? –
[Kidney] I did not see her on Thursday.
[Coroner] When did you last see her? –
[Kidney]On the Tuesday and I then left her on friendly termsin Commercial- street. That was between nine and ten o'clock at night, as I was coming from work.

If Kidney is to be believed where did she go for two days?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I think we should not dismiss the fact that Stride could have been soliciting outside the club, and as such she would have likely as not propositioned men passing by and therefore could have been seen accosting several men in a short space of time, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one of the men she accosted declined her offer and simply pushed her aside and she fell to the ground and he went on his way.

One witness describes a female who it is suggested was Stride having an argument with a man and describes it as a domestic argument, which might be a pointer to Michael Kidney who she had been in a relationship for some time with but they had recently broken up. As her murder has many dissimilarities to the other murders I think he must be considered as a person of interest in her murder.

There are conflicts in the witnesses' inquest testimony to that of Kidney as to when she had the argument with him and when she left him.

Catherine Lane - Telegraph Inquest report
[Coroner] Did you speak to her last week?
[CL] On Thursday and Saturday.
[Coroner] At what time did you see her first on Thursday?
[CL] Between ten and eleven o'clock.
[Coroner] Did she explain why she was coming back?
[CL] She said she had had a few words with the man she was living with.


Michael Kidney inquest testimony Telegraph
[Coroner] You had a quarrel with her on Thursday? –
[Kidney] I did not see her on Thursday.
[Coroner] When did you last see her? –
[Kidney]On the Tuesday and I then left her on friendly termsin Commercial- street. That was between nine and ten o'clock at night, as I was coming from work.

If Kidney is to be believed where did she go for two days?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

While we often disagree, this is one area where I certainly won't argue strongly against. I am very firmly on the fence with Stride, and I am as comfortable considering her part of or not part of the JtR series. While that's often not apparent, due to the nature of conversation on the boards, I would not be at all surprised if it turned out that Stride has no relationship with the other murders other than the fact she was killed on the same night as Eddowes. ( for the record, I think it's pushing it uphill to suggest that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly are not linked - of course it is possible, I just think it's very improbable given the nature of their murders).

So, putting on my "Stride not part of the series" hat, I fully agree that Kidney is someone who must be looked at, and if he can't be ruled out, becomes more worthy of consideration (that is, sadly, the nature of most murders - it's someone close, and an ex-partner is often the solution, not always, but sadly, most often).

I'm sure the police of the day also knew that, so the fact they seem disinterested in Kidney either means they dropped the ball on Stride (which is entirely possible), or they ruled him out and that information is lost to us (also, sadly, entirely possible). Please note, I'm switching hats there, just because that's how I roll! Stride is, or is not, part of the series - I dont' know, nor even know what I think on that, hence I waffle. For that reason, I find the Stride case to be the most interesting (intriguing?) . Oddly, she's also the case for which we have the most witnesses providing input, which one would think would make hers the easiest to make decisions about. Except - witnesses are notoriously error prone, so they will have some good information and some bad, and it can become a nightmare trying to work out what is which. It's a bit of an embarrassment of riches.

Anyway, not to go on too much, I agree with you. We must view Stride (in my view) always with the "maybe yes maybe no" option. I can, at times, convince myself to lean one way or the other, but it never lasts all that long. When I lean "No", Kidney always becomes someone I think we need to look at more closely. When I lean "Yes", I think he's a distraction. Stride makes my head spin, so there's no need to point that out.

- Jeff

[Dickere]

Hi Trevor,

While we often disagree, this is one area where I certainly won't argue strongly against. I am very firmly on the fence with Stride, and I am as comfortable considering her part of or not part of the JtR series. While that's often not apparent, due to the nature of conversation on the boards, I would not be at all surprised if it turned out that Stride has no relationship with the other murders other than the fact she was killed on the same night as Eddowes. ( for the record, I think it's pushing it uphill to suggest that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly are not linked - of course it is possible, I just think it's very improbable given the nature of their murders).

So, putting on my "Stride not part of the series" hat, I fully agree that Kidney is someone who must be looked at, and if he can't be ruled out, becomes more worthy of consideration (that is, sadly, the nature of most murders - it's someone close, and an ex-partner is often the solution, not always, but sadly, most often).

I'm sure the police of the day also knew that, so the fact they seem disinterested in Kidney either means they dropped the ball on Stride (which is entirely possible), or they ruled him out and that information is lost to us (also, sadly, entirely possible). Please note, I'm switching hats there, just because that's how I roll! Stride is, or is not, part of the series - I dont' know, nor even know what I think on that, hence I waffle. For that reason, I find the Stride case to be the most interesting (intriguing?) . Oddly, she's also the case for which we have the most witnesses providing input, which one would think would make hers the easiest to make decisions about. Except - witnesses are notoriously error prone, so they will have some good information and some bad, and it can become a nightmare trying to work out what is which. It's a bit of an embarrassment of riches.

Anyway, not to go on too much, I agree with you. We must view Stride (in my view) always with the "maybe yes maybe no" option. I can, at times, convince myself to lean one way or the other, but it never lasts all that long. When I lean "No", Kidney always becomes someone I think we need to look at more closely. When I lean "Yes", I think he's a distraction. Stride makes my head spin, so there's no need to point that out.

- Jeff

Why would Jack claim credit for Stride though ? He had evidence for Eddowes. If he didn't kill Stride, why claim credit ? OK, it gets the kill count up, but it was a bit of a 'weak' kill, not one that increases his terror. I lean towards him simply not having the time needed to carry out his intentions fully in that case.

[The Rookie Detective]

Aside from written correspondence, there is no way to confirm Stride was a victim of the ripper.

Aside from written correspondence, there is also no way to confirm that Jack the Ripper was the real killer because the term Jack the Ripper only exists through written correspondence.

In other words, we may need to separate what happened in reality, ergo 2 women were murdered, with what may or may not be true in terms of the written references to the killer.

I would suggest that the only written letter that holds any significance is the one sent with the kidney, as it feels more authentic.

All other letters shouldn't be used as a point of reference ahead of what transpired physically.

I recently took a look at some of the news reports and how they correlated with the written letters alleged to have been sent by the killer.

Another member from this site replied to a question I had regarding my query on another thread and he pointed me to a pair of individuals who seem very likely to have been involved with the creation of the vast majority of the letters.

All of my work on this is credit to him entirely.

So let's begin...

The fantasist Albert Bachert/Backert who was proven to be obsessed with the ripper and who claimed to have been the sole recipient of countless numbers of letters after he alleged to have replaced George Lusk as the Chair of the Whitechapel vigilance committee.
Bachert spent his time trying to replicate the role of George Lusk in that he claimed t be the centre of the rippers focus in having received letters from the killer, all in a bid to appear in the press.
The reality is that the initial vigilance committee was disbanded at the end of 1888 but Bachert claimed he was the new head of a group that no longer existed.
At one point he even claimed he apprehended the real killer and saved a woman about to be murdered.



And the rogue character Charles Le Grand (Grant) who worked as part of the Whitechapel vigilance committee as a so called private detective, but in reality was an enforcer and blackmailer who was proven to have sent threatening letters to women demanding money. He took on various different aliases and was eventually found guilty and incarcerated for 20 years a few months after the murders were alleged to have stopped.

Charles Le Grand used written phrased references in his letters that were identical to the author of the ripper letters.

Albert Bachert and Charles Le Grand between them Is ould suggest are likely to be responsible for perpetuating the legend of a killer who in reality probably killed with no connection to any letters or had any connection to the name "Jack the Ripper."

Please note that I cannot claim to be the person who has any knowledge of Bachert or Le Grand, as I have only been introduced to these rogue characters yesterday.

I can only thank the member who mentioned their names for me to take a closer look at and since then I have realised that we need to be careful when talking about double events because when you look at the evidence, it's highly likely that the real killers legacy was only inflated by a narcissistic fantasist in Bachert and a rogue blackmailing aggressive criminal in Le Grand who went to prison for 20 years shortly after the murders appear to have ceased.

Both men worked for the Whitechapel vigilance committee or at least claimed to. The same committee set up to help the police patrol the streets and originally headed by thean who was the focal point and recipient of the original letters, Mr George Lusk.

I'm not suggesting that Bachert and/or Le Grand were the real killers, but they certainly inflated the legend of the man who slayed several prostitutes.

The man who killed Kelly, Eddowes, Chapman, Nichols and McKenzie is the man we are really looking for.

Not forgetting that with McKenzie, the killer appears to have gone full circle as McKenzie's murder is more similar to Nichols than any other.

In other words, Nichols and McKenzie were the same killer

Kelly, Eddowes and Chapman were the same killer

And it's likely that the same man did all 5 murders.


I would suggest that Stride is not a victim of the same killer.

It has always intrigued me as to whether the man who shouted "Lipski" actually shouted "Lusk!"

Not suggesting that other.man smoking the pipe was Lusk, but perhaps the intention was there.
The vigilance committee were seen as a bit of a joke and considering that Bachert fantasied about being the killers focal point, it's no stretch of the imagination to hypothesis that the man was Bachert and the man who threw Stride to the floor may have been Le Grand who knew how to use a knife having been an ex military man and known for his aggressive streak.

Just a few ingredients I wanted to add into the mix

Thoughts?

P.s. Not my intention to highjack this thread sorry!

[JeffHamm]

Why would Jack claim credit for Stride though ? He had evidence for Eddowes. If he didn't kill Stride, why claim credit ? OK, it gets the kill count up, but it was a bit of a 'weak' kill, not one that increases his terror. I lean towards him simply not having the time needed to carry out his intentions fully in that case.

Hi Dickere,

But when does Jack claim credit though? The Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard are generally thought to be journalistic hoaxes, and if that's correct then Jack never claims credit. If they are genuine, then maybe Stride is a Ripper victim. I really don't have a strong view either way with regards to her inclusion.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Dickere,

But when does Jack claim credit though? The Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard are generally thought to be journalistic hoaxes, and if that's correct then Jack never claims credit. If they are genuine, then maybe Stride is a Ripper victim. I really don't have a strong view either way with regards to her inclusion.

- Jeff

A Star Newspaper reporter Frederick Best has been suggested as being responsible for writing the letters purporting to be from JTR to the police and press at the time.

In 1931 at the age of 70, Frederick Best purportedly confessed that he and a colleague at the Star newspaper had written all the letters signed "Jack the Ripper" to "keep the business alive" The possibility that 'Best' and company were responsible for all the Ripper letters is unbelievable, considering how many were sent and the various locations they were posted from. Best's confession first appeared in a 1966 edition of "Crime and Detection" and is set out below as described by Best to author Nigel Morland

"Returning homewards with me, Best discussed murders, the Whitechapel Murders in particular. With much-amplifying detail, he talked of his days as a penny-a-liner on 'The Star' newspaper. As a freelance, he had covered the Whitechapel murders from the discovery of Tabram. He claimed that he, and a provincial colleague, was responsible for all the Ripper letters, to 'keep the business alive'.

As a pointer to Frederick Best here is an extract from a letter from the major shareholder of The Star Newspaper 1891 “Furthermore, Mr. Best's attempt to mislead Central News during the Whitechapel Murders should have led to an earlier termination of his association with the newspaper”

In 2009 after examining the handwriting of Bulling, Moore, and Best a handwriting expert concluded that Frederick Best was the most likely author of that letter, along with the “Saucy Jack Postcard” also received at the offices of The Central News agency on October 1st 1888, just as The Dear Boss letter had been. The postcard was pre-stamped as was common practice in Victorian times.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

Aside from written correspondence, there is no way to confirm Stride was a victim of the ripper.

Aside from written correspondence, there is also no way to confirm that Jack the Ripper was the real killer because the term Jack the Ripper only exists through written correspondence.

In other words, we may need to separate what happened in reality, ergo 2 women were murdered, with what may or may not be true in terms of the written references to the killer.

I would suggest that the only written letter that holds any significance is the one sent with the kidney, as it feels more authentic.

All other letters shouldn't be used as a point of reference ahead of what transpired physically.

I recently took a look at some of the news reports and how they correlated with the written letters alleged to have been sent by the killer.

Another member from this site replied to a question I had regarding my query on another thread and he pointed me to a pair of individuals who seem very likely to have been involved with the creation of the vast majority of the letters.

All of my work on this is credit to him entirely.

So let's begin...

The fantasist Albert Bachert/Backert who was proven to be obsessed with the ripper and who claimed to have been the sole recipient of countless numbers of letters after he alleged to have replaced George Lusk as the Chair of the Whitechapel vigilance committee.
Bachert spent his time trying to replicate the role of George Lusk in that he claimed t be the centre of the rippers focus in having received letters from the killer, all in a bid to appear in the press.
The reality is that the initial vigilance committee was disbanded at the end of 1888 but Bachert claimed he was the new head of a group that no longer existed.
At one point he even claimed he apprehended the real killer and saved a woman about to be murdered.



And the rogue character Charles Le Grand (Grant) who worked as part of the Whitechapel vigilance committee as a so called private detective, but in reality was an enforcer and blackmailer who was proven to have sent threatening letters to women demanding money. He took on various different aliases and was eventually found guilty and incarcerated for 20 years a few months after the murders were alleged to have stopped.

Charles Le Grand used written phrased references in his letters that were identical to the author of the ripper letters.

Albert Bachert and Charles Le Grand between them Is ould suggest are likely to be responsible for perpetuating the legend of a killer who in reality probably killed with no connection to any letters or had any connection to the name "Jack the Ripper."

Please note that I cannot claim to be the person who has any knowledge of Bachert or Le Grand, as I have only been introduced to these rogue characters yesterday.

I can only thank the member who mentioned their names for me to take a closer look at and since then I have realised that we need to be careful when talking about double events because when you look at the evidence, it's highly likely that the real killers legacy was only inflated by a narcissistic fantasist in Bachert and a rogue blackmailing aggressive criminal in Le Grand who went to prison for 20 years shortly after the murders appear to have ceased.

Both men worked for the Whitechapel vigilance committee or at least claimed to. The same committee set up to help the police patrol the streets and originally headed by thean who was the focal point and recipient of the original letters, Mr George Lusk.

I'm not suggesting that Bachert and/or Le Grand were the real killers, but they certainly inflated the legend of the man who slayed several prostitutes.

The man who killed Kelly, Eddowes, Chapman, Nichols and McKenzie is the man we are really looking for.

Not forgetting that with McKenzie, the killer appears to have gone full circle as McKenzie's murder is more similar to Nichols than any other.

In other words, Nichols and McKenzie were the same killer

Kelly, Eddowes and Chapman were the same killer

And it's likely that the same man did all 5 murders.


I would suggest that Stride is not a victim of the same killer.

It has always intrigued me as to whether the man who shouted "Lipski" actually shouted "Lusk!"

Not suggesting that other.man smoking the pipe was Lusk, but perhaps the intention was there.
The vigilance committee were seen as a bit of a joke and considering that Bachert fantasied about being the killers focal point, it's no stretch of the imagination to hypothesis that the man was Bachert and the man who threw Stride to the floor may have been Le Grand who knew how to use a knife having been an ex military man and known for his aggressive streak.

Just a few ingredients I wanted to add into the mix

Thoughts?

P.s. Not my intention to highjack this thread sorry!

Hi Rook, i've replied to one point in particular on the Bury thread. There you will find your answer as to who the ripper most likely was.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Sorry, I should have phrased that differently as "possibly" not "probably". It was the first thing that came to my mind. I just checked the inquest testimony for Dr. Blackwell, and he states that he arrived at 1:16 (he checked his watch upon arrival).

He also testified:

Coroner] Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived.

Which means at the inquest he was saying she was killed between 12:46 and 12:56 type thing. Obviously, we know such estimates are far less reliable than that, but even today that is not how most people view medical evidence and they attribute to it a degree of confidence that is not warranted.

That aside, the author of the A.F. may have been aware of this information at the time the article was written, and so in their article just listed an easy time for people to benchmark to (12:45, rather than something odd like 12:46, or to give a range, etc).

I'm not sure of the date for the A.F. article, when it was printed, but obviously if it's after the inquest when Dr. B. testified, then that seems like a reasonable option to consider as well (particularly as that time corresponds to Schwartz's statement, which I think there is good reason for the club to be aware of if a member really did act as his interpreter as I recall some suggesting in the past). If the article was written before the inquest, then I guess it depends upon whether or not there is other evidence indicating that Dr. B's opinion was known to the press? If not, then I think that re-elevates Schwartz as a reasonable source, otherwise I think either, or in combination, there's a fairly readily available explanation.

- Jeff

I agree, Jeff, in that possibly is about right.

Either way, I think the initial comment suggested that the A.F. article supports a 12.45am TOD when in fact it is merely another opinion and it doesn't support anything.

Dr Blackwell is important to the whole thing because as you say, he had a watch to check his time and he was a medical professional qualified to give a professional assessment. 'Much better than the various people running 'round: we can't be sure of their times, eye witness accounts are known to demand caution, we don't even know whether or not witness statements were implied as opposed to a verbatim transcript of that which they stated and we don't know how many of these witnesses embellished their account out of a desire to be a local celebrity (we know that these people stood around discussing the murders and that knowledge of a murder would afford somebody a few hours of attention, and we know that people charged money to view murder scenes).

In terms of estimates being reliable, modern day professionals are convinced that some are more reliable than others and there is one factor that has a huge impact on that reliability: time lapse from loss of life to estimated TOD. So, Dr Blackwell isn't in a bad position there to give his estimate (possibly).

Having said that, there is something in Dr Blackwell's testimony that I find interesting. That being his reasoning:

From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed.

Obviously, the windpipe was severed also.

I don't think there is enough there to draw a conclusion that it must have been 20 minutes to half an hour. It is possible for a person to die within a few minutes of having the windpipe severed due to a lack of oxygen supply to the brain and/or blood flowing into the lungs, influenced by factors such as the severity of the cut and how much air remains in the lungs. It could take a lot longer by the way, hours rather than minutes. And then, there is the issue of blood flowing after the heart has stopped. An open would would still bleed after death due to gravity, which would be a slow oozing, but for how long?