|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 7:27 pm: |       |
Glenn,
As always I respect your opinions, and enjoy your careful and well thought out postings. However, I stick to my guns... only my own opinion, but I believe that Schwartz witnessed the murder unfolding. And that this was JTR.
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 119
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. Nice talking to you.
Now I'll hit the sack -- it's 01:40 in the morning here. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 8:03 pm: | |
Gentlemen-- as I've already ruffled some feathers, I'm hesistant to assert myself here, but I really feel I have to make a couple of objections.
Yes, speculation is o.k.; it's not a dirty word. I welcome speculation.
But a point to ponder: is it really desirable to inject an entirely unknown element into a problem in order to solve it? Because in dealing with Stride, that's what I see many theorists doing.
I don't mean to be crass, but I wish to exaggerate in order to make a point.
If one sees a bowl of vanilla pudding on a table one can't call it a piece of pie by assuming the cook meant to later come back and add sliced bananas and a crust.
Unless you have a good solid reason for making such an assumption (you see dough in the fridge, for instance) you have to allow that what you see before you it is really nothing but a bowl of vanilla pudding.
Schwartz sees a drunk totter up to Stride and pull her around. There's yelling but unfortunately Schwartz doesn't understand English. He does understand a local racial slur, however, and runs away followed by another spectator (or accomplice--take your pick). Ten minutes later (or so) Stride's body is discovered with the throat cut.
Now I admit there are uncertainties here but I ask with all good intentions: is it really desirable to add unknown elements when the known elements can entirely explain the situation?
By adding a completely unknown element (suggesting a smooth talking stranger arrives on the scene after the drunk totters away) isn't the theorist injecting this unknown element entirely in an attempt to move from Point A to Point B? I think that is a fair question. Why can't the theorist merely say that a malignant drunk attacked Stride, pulled her by the neckerchief into the shadows (as some press reports claim, and Paul Begg, for one, theorized on the old message boards) and cut her throat? Why can't we end it at that? Do you see why I compare the smooth-talking stranger to calling a bowl of pudding a piece of pie? It's because it appears to me to be adding an entirely unknown element in order to make this into a Ripper murder when clearly there is no good reason for doing so.
Now Robert asks an excellent question. Stride is found clutching a package of cachous. If it's a wild drunk who has attacked Stride with a knife, why is she still holding them? The Ripper cuts people up. Why isn't she clawing and attempting to defend herself? Surely this suggests the presence of someone else, the unknown smooth talker?
Or, once again, do we already have another suggestion closer at hand?
If the drunk is unknown to Stride it is certainly a curious element. But do we really know that this is the case? I submit that it would be entirely odd and rare for an unknown drunk to stagger up to a woman and immediate assault her. We do, however, know with certainty that Stride has recently broke up with her lover, and that he has a history of having been brutal towards her. We equally know that the drunk is a local man (because of the use of regional slang) and a Gentile.
There, I suggest is the answer. The cachous are in Stride's hand because she consciously choses not to resist. We don't need to add an unknown element, we merely need to understand what we are seeing. Her attacker is known to her (I'm not the first to suggest this by the way; please refer to Evans & Gainey, two men with lots of police experience ) and Stride, having gone through it before, thinks it's better not to further incite him.
Similarly, with the lack of mutilations. In order to move from a non-Ripper murder to a Ripper murder the theorist needs to add an unknown element: the murderer was interrupted. I asked before, what evidence is there that this is the case? Unless there is a good reason for believing this, we need to assume that there are no mutilations because the attacker had no intention of making mutilations. I submit that the known attacker of Stride had more time at his disposal than the man who is later in Mitre Square with Eddowes. I further submit that a pony is not such a stupid animal as to trample over a woman lying beside the gateway, and that it will shy at the smell of blood (known from experience) as equally as it will shy at the presence(?) of an unknown "tense man."
A logical explanation can be found in the case evidence. We must simply seize it.
Unfortunately, the Saucy Jack postcard made it into the press the next morning, the striking metaphor of "double event" appeared on the scene, and it has been downhill ever since.
Respectfully submitted, RJ Palmer.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 121
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 8:52 pm: | |
Hi Palmer,
Ooooops, your post just came up as I was about to drop it for the evening. Well, I'll try to keep it short.
Naaah, you shouldn't have to hesitate to contribute.
Well, actually you see, I claim that it is those who firmly belive that Long Liz should be excluded, that are complicating things. I can only ask you this: where lies the logic in dismissing the fact that Stride was killed by a throat-cutting man in Whitechapel, and less than an hour later another murder occurs (involving throat-cutting as well, but now with extensive mutilation) in the City district, whereafter the victim's bloody apron is found on a location, indicating he was heading back into Whitechapel again? What are the odds of that being a coincidence? Hmmm... Even if you don't agree with the conclusion I think there is a pattern here and a continuity in time and events that adds up.
In this context, I find the interruption scenario totally logical -- I couldn't care less about the Saucy jack postcard or whether a theory is popular or not. I think facts themselves point in this direction -- the alternatives are unnecessary complicated and constructed, I feel. We have no "evidence" of anything, in either way, Palmer. We can only study the facts and apply our common sense.
"A logical explanation is in the known case evidence. We must simply seize it."
Exactly!
"Why isn't she clawing and attempting to defend herself?}
I honestly don't know, Palmer. But there are no indications on that the other Ripper victims did that either. I don't know how important the cachous are, but the common feature in all the Ripper attacks is that the victims were take by surprised, whether they knew the man or not.
I know, however, that my belief in that Schartz's man isn't the killer is not well supported by other members of the board here, but I can take it. I actually don't know if the drunken man knew her or not, but I do think the real murderer appeared after him (even though we have no witness account of his departure). And why? Well, I tried to explain it in my post above. Why should he take such a risk killing her after having made such a spectacel and after having being seen by witnesses? I don't get it. Where lies the logic in such a behaviour, drunk or not? Why is adding an unknown element more problematic than this totally strange scenario?
Then I must admit, with all respect and the best of meaning, that I don't understand anything of the last statements in your post (it could be due to langue difficulties on my part, but anyway...:
"I further submit that a pony is not such a stupid animal as to trample over a woman lying beside the gateway, and that it will shy at the smell of blood (known from experience) as equally as it will shy at the presence(?) of an unknown "tense man."
What do you mean here?
Do you mean that a pony doesen't do these things or that it will do some of it. According to Diemschutz the horse did shy at the left because something was lying in front of him at the right side, across the gateway. I've actually seen horses do that (although not with blood involved). They are also very sensitive to the occurence of other living creatures nearby and reacts on it. I'm not sure what you meant here with "not so stupid" (about what?), I could have misunderstood you. One theory claims that the murderer was still hiding in the darkness in the yard when Diemscutz arrived and that he sneaked out on the other side of the horse while Diemscutz was jumping down to investigate or went inside for help.
Now I must get some sleep, so I can watch the Atlethic's World Championship in the morning.
All the best regards, Palmer
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 649
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 8:54 pm: | |
Hi RJ
If the drunken man was Kidney, we have the problem of how he found her. Surely he didn't bump into her by coincidence? She wouldn't have told him where she was going. None of the locals seemed to know her, suggesting that this wasn't one of her habitual haunts, of the kind that Kidney would have known about. There are no reports of Kidney enquiring for her at her lodgings that night, or going round the streets asking if anyone had seen her.
But let's suppose that it was Kidney. He throws Liz to the ground, and she decides not to resist. Isn't it strange that she chooses this moment to fish a packet of cachous out of her pocket? If she was expecting a beating, this was an odd thing for her to do. Of course, she may have offered him a cachou to try and pacify him, or calm the situation down, but it still looks odd.
Joan made the point that the cachous may have been taken out of the pocket in readiness for dealing with the after-effects of oral sex. That would seem to suggest a scenario where someone propositioned her, she went into the yard with the cachous to hand, and then was taken by surprise.
I admit that her not screaming very loudly is a puzzle, if she and the man were strangers. For all she knew, he might have been the Ripper.
Robert
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 10:54 pm: | |
Robert--As I speculated in my initial post, the man in the long overcoat might have been a mutual acquaintance of Kidney & Stride. This is speculation plain & simple and I have no proof of this. It is entirely intuition. Yet I quickly add that it would explain the otherwise very odd & sudden appearance of a drunken & angry man who a short time later staggers up the street and immediately assaults Liz Stride. What is the motive for such an outrageous action? I merely suggest the scenerio. Is this Kidney who has been tipped off that Stride is milling around with a new bloke in Berner Street? Remember that PC Smith testified at inquest that the street was not known for prostitution (the Jewish gents evidently demurred) and Walter Dew was very unhappy with the notion that Stride would stand in the same locale and turn tricks in succession.
The mints pose no problem. The grapes were sour. The man she was smooching had foul breath. She liked the taste. Any number of possibilities. It's an unknowable. What is knowable is that she held on to them while she was attacked.
Glenn--Let me explain my last paragraph; I have the fault of sometimes being obscure. The reference to the 'tense man' is from a passage in a Ripper book wherein the authors suggest that the presence of a 'tense man' in Dutfield's Yard would explain the behavior of Diemschutz' pony. Evidently horse handlers have agreed with the reasoning. This could be construed as one argument that the murderer was "interrupted" and would explain the lack of mutiltions. (I know this wasn't your argument, but I thought it relevant to the discussion at hand) . I think there are two objections to this theory. First, it still doesn't explain the missing ten minutes between the assault witnessed by Schwartz and the arrival of Diemschutz. If Schwartz's man is the murderer he still had time to complete his repulsive task. The second objection is that a horse might shy at the smell of fresh blood and (I believe) would hesitate before trampling over a woman if it could see her lying in the dark. In other words, in my opinion, I really don't see one single strong indication in any of this that jumps out at me and satisfies me that the murderer was interrupted.
All the best.
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 11:10 pm: | |
P.S. I have been seduced into this intriguing discussion, but I really have to get back to work now. If I may, let me pose a final question or two before I slip back into the shadows.
It is sometimes argued that there is a striking similarity between the man seen by Schwartz and the man seen in Mitre Square. We know that the Scotland Yard files contained no less than three pages devoted to discussing this very point.
If we accept that Scotland Yard felt these two sighting were of the same man (I don't necessarily wish to argue the point) aren't we confronted with two witnesses? Don't we have both Lawende & Schwartz to contend with? Or maybe even a PC? Why then does Anderson say "the only man" who got a good look at the killer? Who is he snubbing? Lawende was later used by the Yard (this we know). Was Anderson snubbing Schwartz? If so, why? If not, why not?
Questions to ponder... |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 11:29 pm: | |
We don't know who the witnesse(s) were. But my guess would be Levy over Lawende or Schwartz. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 122
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hi Palmer,
I'm actually glad you entered and put fire into a discussion that were about to dry up, so it would be a shame if you'd "slip back into the shadows".
I don't know if you're going to read this, but anyway...
OK. So that's what you meant with "tense man".
Regarding your objections to the interruption theory:
Once again you assume that Schwartz's man was the assaulter.
"First, it still doesn't explain the missing ten minutes between the assault witnessed by Schwartz and the arrival of Diemschutz. If Schwartz's man is the murderer he still had time to complete his repulsive task."
Exactly. That's one of the reasons I don't belive this man to be the killer.
Then I must admit I still don't get your "second" argument about the horse.
"The second objection is that a horse might shy at the smell of fresh blood and (I believe) would hesitate before trampling over a woman if it could see her lying in the dark."
But that's exactly what the horse did, according to Diemschutz! I don't see the problem here...!!! Why should this information speak against the interruption theory? Or do you mean that Diemschutz is wrong in his observations? What does this show? 
Call me stupid or hopelessly slow, but I have absolutely no idea why his should be a base for questioning the scenario presented. 
As far as witness descriptions are concerned, I can't say I find such a discussion that useful or progressive. I have some experience of "descriptions" from several police cases, and I don't see the point in laying much weight in them. In one case I studied, fifteen people should describe one certain man. The result was that there were only some similarities in two of them, all the others had totally descriptions of hats, body lenght, beard or not bearded or just moustache, hair color, clothes etc. Totally worthless. So I wouldn't lay too much energy into that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 36
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 4:30 pm: | |
"I can only ask you this: where lies the logic in dismissing the fact that Stride was killed by a throat-cutting man in Whitechapel, and less than an hour later another murder occurs (involving throat-cutting as well, but now with extensive mutilation) in the City district, whereafter the victim's bloody apron is found on a location, indicating he was heading back into Whitechapel again? What are the odds of that being a coincidence?" An interesting point but one that is nullified by the fact that Elizabeth Stride was not murdered in Whitechapel. She was killed south of the Whitechapel High Street in St. George in the East.
Also the fact that Stride's throat was cut during a time when the newspapers had played up the actions of a throat cutting murderer, not only the London press but press around the world, would tend to lessen the "odds of that being a coincidence" After all, Stride and Eddowes were the second and third women to have died by having their throats cut that night, the first being a domestic murder that involved husband and wife, and surely that can be considered a coincidence as well?
I won't go into the reasons why I don't believe that Stride was a Ripper victim but I would like to address some of the things that have been written on this thread.
As to the wound to Stride's throat it was a shallow cut comparatively speaking. All the other victims of the Whitechapel murderer had their throats cut to the bone, the vertebrae actually being notched in all cases except for Stride. Stride's shallow wound was so unlike the wound to Annie Chapman's throat, for example, that Dr. Phillips stated "There is very great dissimilarity between the two."
In fact both Dr. Blackwell and Dr. Phillips stated that they had seen equal or worse wounds to the throats of suicides. A point that the Times picked up on in an article published on October 24, 1888 which stated "The appearance of the injury to her throat was not in itself inconsistent with that of a self-inflicted wound. Both Dr. Phillips and Dr. Blackwell have seen self- inflicted wounds more extensive and severe, but those have not usually involved the carotid artery. Had some sharp instrument been found near the right hand of the deceased this case might have had very much the appearance of a determined suicide."
As to the possible knife used it has been stated that it was dull. There is no indication that this was so in fact Dr. Blackwell stated "In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife." Whereas the relatively shallow wound to the neck might conceivably be explained by the use of a dull knife the fact that the knife was apparently sharp becomes a bit of a problem when attempting to explain the dissimilarities in throat wounds.
As to the type of knife that might have been involved in the Stride murder, in comparison to the one that might have been involved in the Chapman murder, Dr. Phillips thought that the two weapons used were dissimilar.
As to the Chapman murder weapon Phillips stated ‘It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer." It could not have been a bayonet, he said, but it might have been a specialized post mortem knife or even a well ground down slaughterers knife. But when asked by the Coroner "Would the knife of a cobbler or of any person in the leather trades have done?" Dr. Phillips replied - "I think the knife used in those trades would not be long enough in the blade."
If we compare this with Dr. Phillips' thoughts on the knife used in the Stride murder we find that he believed that it was a much shorter weapon, based on the position of the body and the total lack of arterial blood spray. Dr. Phillips felt that "A short knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, would do the same thing." Whereas Dr. Phillips had expressly dismissed a shoemakers knife as the murder weapon in the Chapman murder he expressly names this same type of knife as possibly being used in the Stride murder.
Wolf. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 4:50 pm: | |
"If one sees a bowl of vanilla pudding on a table one can't call it a piece of pie by assuming the cook meant to later come back and add sliced bananas and a crust."
But it seems to us you yourself are offering a Kidney pie in the next breath above. And that not all the necessary ingredients for it are present.
Saddam
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 4:35 pm: | |
Caz; "If at first you don't succeed...try, try again!
Joan |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 123
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 10:08 pm: | |
Hi Wolf,
"An interesting point but one that is nullified by the fact that Elizabeth Stride was not murdered in Whitechapel. She was killed south of the Whitechapel High Street in St. George in the East."
Thank you for the geography lesson, Wolf. I feel it to be rather redundant in this context, though. You missed the point, however; whether it's St. George in the East or Whitechapel (I'm really not that familiar with London) doesen't really matter in the long run; if you look at the maps, you'll see that Eddowes was killed in the City district, while her apron was found somewhere around Goulston Street, east of the City district boundary, indicating he was heading back into the eastern area; so it's east(southeast)--west--and back east again. That was the point. So your remark doesen't change anything at all. You also seem to disregard the time factor, the coincidence lay not only in the geographical conditions, but also in the fact that the two murders were committed in less than an hour -- Eddowes later than Stride, but both bodies were relatively warm and the killings quite recently performed before they were found -- that helps us to stake out a pattern of time and movement.
Then you're doing a mistake by throwing in the domestic murder (which I am well aware about). This had absolutely nothing in common with the two other murders; as you yourself point out, it was a result of domestic violence and had nothing to do with killings of prostitutes in the streets. These kind of incidents (the domestic murder) were probably happening every now and then in the East End, so I can't really see the point in referring to it in connection with the "double event". The murders on Stride and Eddowes were -- although we can find dissimilarities -- something completely different and a bit out of the ordinary. So, NO, the domestic murder has no place in the "coincidence" discussion. The relation isn't there.
The wound on Stride's throat was not shallow the whole way around -- only on one side, while it was deep on the other. This could actually indicate that the murderer was in a hurry or simply just was interrupted, and therefore didn't finish or just did a sloppy job.
Regarding the knife, there are no statements in the doctors' testimonies that comfirms what weapon that was used with certainty. And why should we necessarily assume that Jack the Ripper always used the same sort of knife? If we'd count Tabram to the canonical victim, then there are strong indications on that two different kind of knives were used there.
I do admit it's an interesting point that in the other murders the weapon seem to be done with a similar kind of knife, but that doesen't prove strongly enough, I think, the exclusion of Stride as a Ripper victim.
The link between the two events in both time and movement pattern are in my opinion stronger and clearer than the modus operandi.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 10:34 pm: | |
Us? Do you have a mouse in your pocket Saddam, or are you (as always) just happy to see me?
I'm not offering a Kidney pie, but what I am offering is "a model", a self-confessed hypothetical explanation for what we are seeing. I am not adding details, per se, though I am calling the man that some are calling Kosminski and others are calling Jack the Ripper by the name of Michael.
We all pretty much agree on the objective facts. But facts are just bricks. Bricks can build a whore house or a mansion.
And, unlike some of the Stride-as-Ripper-Victim crowd I'm not throwing in a completely hypothetical man in the shadows, nor am I clinging to some baseless claim that the murderer was interrupted on the strength of a time warp wherein Deimschutz AKA Deus ex machina pops in at the exact moment to explain-away the lack of mutilations. Even if my model is completely wrong (it very well could be!!) I think it does serve an intellectual purpose in that it exposes the weakness of the opposing arguments, particularly the rather stubborn refusal to admit that the modus operandi here is the polar opposite of what must have happened in Mitre Square or Hanbury Street.
Now. As to the continuing saga of Schwartz possibly being Anderson's witness.
1. We know that Lawende was being used as a police witness at the time of Kosminski's ill-fated trip to Colney Hatch. There is no evidence that Schwartz was being used. Strike one.
2. The man Schwartz witnessed used a racial slur that was directed at Jews. As it was deeply insulting and extremely regional it is very difficult for this babe in the woods to believe that it would have been used by a non-native Jew, or, in fact, any Jew. As Anderson's suspect was a Jew, I call this strike two.
3. Swanson said the testimony of the witness would " be the means of the murderer being hanged." (Marginalia) But I don't believe for a moment that Swanson could possibly have felt this strongly about Schwartz's testimony! Why? I already said why. Because Swanson himself admits that the attack witnessed by Schwartz could well have been entirely independent of the murder (For those keeping score this can be found in HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 148-59). The police could have nabbed the man for simple assault, that's about it. Strike three.
(You're oughta there)
R.J.P.
Glenn--Of course the horse shied. As I say, we are in agreement about the objective facts. They are not in question. All I'm suggesting is there is another compeletly natural explanation for why the horse shied, without needing to have the murderer hiding in the shadows.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 652
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 4:55 am: | |
Hi all
RJ, of course Stride could have wanted to suck a cachou for a number of reasons. What bothers me was that she wanted to suck one at that time and in that place.
If Kidney was so violent that Stride didn't see any point in screaming loudly, or running away (maybe into the Socialist club or the nearby pub for help), or even backing away from him up the road - well! Kidney's just thrown her down on the pavement and she decides she wants a cachou?
I think she must have taken out the cachous after being thrown down, because I can't see her hanging on to them while being thrown to the pavement.
Re the long coated man, I appreciate what you say is meant only as a suggestion. It all seems a bit unlikely though. The long-coated man sees Stride. He rushes off to apprise Kidney and manages to find him. He and Kidney come back and Kidney sends him to talk to Stride. The long coated man manages to get Stride alone. She tells him to buzz off. He tells Kidney, Kidney kills Stride despite knowing that the long coated man knows all about these comings and goings. Either Kidney completely lost his head, or he felt he could trust the long coated man to say nothing. Afterwards, unless Kidney stayed in the company of the long coated man for the next few minutes, the long coated man would have had suspicions that Kidney was the Ripper, because of the murder of Eddowes. And there was a nice reward on offer.
If it's felt necessary to account for the drunken man's assault on Stride, isn't it possible simply that a drunken anti-semite finds a woman standing in the gateway to a Jewish club, and assumes she's Jewish? So he attacks her.
Hi Wolf
I agree that the relative shallowness of the throat wound, and Phillips's preference for a knife shorter than six inches, are factors that must be placed on the side of the scales against Stride's being a Ripper victim. However I do find it very hard to understand precisely why Phillips thought that a 6 - 8 inch knife would have been too long.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 124
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 4:40 pm: | |
Wolf,
I've never insisted on that there was a murderer lurking in the shadows in Dutfield's Yard during Diemschutz's appearence -- I was merely pointing out this possibility, because others have made this suggestion and I won't rule it out.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 37
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 6:53 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
Your touchy response aside, I did not miss your point. What you clearly wrote was "the fact that Stride was killed by a throat-cutting man in Whitechapel, and less than an hour later another murder occurs (involving throat-cutting as well, but now with extensive mutilation) in the City district, whereafter the victim's bloody apron is found on a location, indicating he was heading back into Whitechapel again? What are the odds of that being a coincidence?"
To paraphrase you are saying that Stride was killed in Whitechapel. Eddowes was then killed in the City. The apron proves that the killer then moved back into Whitechapel so "what are the odds of that being a coincidence?"
Clearly you are connecting A to B to A again in order to try and make your point. If you now want to change what you said earlier then by all means go ahead but saying "...it's east(southeast)--west--and back east again. That was the point," is not the same thing especially since it is really southeast to west to northeast, ("what are the odds of that being a coincidence?") (?)
I do indeed disregard the time factor especially if it is weighed against the many dissimilarities between the Stride murder and the Ripper murders.
It was you, (see above), who uses the fact that both Stride and Eddowes throats were cut on the same night in your argument against coincidence. I merely pointed out that if one was to use these as criteria then they were not alone in being murdered in that fashion on that same night. If none of that was the point of your argument, and you seem to be backtracking and saying that the time factor was really the most important part of your argument, then I am afraid that was not very clear in your original post.
I am afraid that the wound to Elizabeth Stride's throat was shallow when compared to the wounds suffered by the victims of the Ripper. The sheath and vessels on the left side of the neck were cut through but the carotid artery was not divided. On the right side of the neck. the wound was described as being "more superficial." The throat was not cut to the spinal column. The vertebrae were not notched by the knife as they were in Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly. If you can show me that I am wrong by comparing the wounds of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly with those suffered by Stride then I would be glad to listen. If you have some information that you feel supercedes the opinion and expertise of Dr. Phillips on this matter I would welcome the opportunity to hear it. This of course would include any evidence that you might have regarding Dr. Phillips' inquest testimony regarding the knife as well.
Hi Robert.
Using Dr. Phillips own inquest testimony he believed that Stride was "seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck."
Thus her death was caused by the partial severing of the left carotid artery which would have led to syncope, the heart stopping because of lack of blood. Because she was alive and conscious when her throat was cut, unlike Nichols or Chapman, the severed artery would shoot out a jet of blood that would spray everything in front of it and flow down the left side of Stride's body. As there was no spray of blood on the walls of the driveway and no blood on the left side of Stride's clothing Phillips deduced that she must have been lying on her left side with her neck only inches off of the ground when the killer reached around her neck, without lifting her head, and cut her throat from ear to ear. This would be difficult to achieve with a knife "...at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer" as was the case in the Chapman murder.
Wolf. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 125
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 10:40 am: | |
Hi Wolf,
Guess I had a really bad day lately, sorry if my post sounded harsh; I'm beginning to get a bit frustrated due to the repetitive nature on the board sometimes, especially as some of the conctributors mostly seem to put forward their own opionions without ever commenting the answers they get (I won't mention any names, but there are one or two).
Well, I think this is a matter of which factors we, individually, feel to be most important. You seem to lay more weight in the MO, which I don't. The strongest reason for this is that the facts we have is not complete or informative enough, and they never usually are in such old cases as this. I do agree that there are slight differences between Stride's injuries and some of the other victim's (I would be a complete fool not to see this), but the question is if these "facts" are valid enough to point in any direction. I think not! The difference in MO could also have its basis on circumstances and conditions surrouding the murder we don't know about.
So here I feel we have to be careful and instead I therefore feel it necessary to combine the availible facts with my personal common sense and instincts (as most police-men have to), and let this rule my interpretation.
And I'm afraid you are missing the point again, it doesen't matter, Wolf, if it is northeast or southeast, I'm absolutely astounded by the fact that you don't see the east--west-east pattern and instead are breaking it down to details which are totally redundant for the big picture; I don't fell I have to change anythinh regarding the geographical directions (as you're implying) -- it is east--west(City) -- east again, it doesen't have to be more complicated than that. There ARE a pattern which actually is quite clear and I am not the only one to have seen this.
To abort any misunderstandings I therefore will try to pen down the reasons for why I think like I do. I do say that the time factor is a strong argument, but I will point out that it is a combination of factors, that make my common sense come to these conclusions.
1) A woman is killed having her throat cut in the East district. Her body is warm and the blood is still in a liquid state (the murder must therefore have occured just before the body was examined, probably seconds before the discovery).
2) Less than an hour later a woman is found murdered some minutes away in a western direction, in the City, she also have had her throat cut, but is mutilated (here the murderer obviously were able to "work" without being disturbed). This body is slightly warm as well, indicating that the murder was performed some minutes after the Stride murder.
3) Eddowes bloody apron is then found in Goulston Street, indicating the murderer was on his way back east again!
Coincidences? I think not!
These are just my personal interpretations, of course (although I'm not the first one to put some weight on these factors), but I am very surprised you don't see or accept that there is a pattern here, that is relatively natural and logical. To disregard from this I feel is to make things enormously comlicated -- these are here also facts to be considered and I feel they are equally or even more important than the modus operandi. We can't be completeley sure about the conditions on the murder sites, so we can't automatically assume that just because a serial killer doesen't act exactly the same each time, we should rule him out in that particular case. Especially as there is a time and movement patter to take in consideration.
Now -- I'll repeat it again for the hundreth time -- I don't say that this is what actually happen, I am not certain of anything. It is not only the MO here that are uncertain, almost all the facts in this case are hard to value and trust. We can only interpret what we see and we obviously interpret things totally different. That is not the end of the world.
However, I can't spell it out any clearer than this.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 10:18 pm: | |
Glenn asks us to believe that Stride must have been killed by the Ripper because what are the odds that someone else would be killed by the Ripper an hour and a half later within roughly the same district. OK, fair enough, it's one way of looking at it...
But then he wants us to believe that the man seen attacking Stride not more than half an hour before she was found dead in the exact same location WASN'T Jack the Ripper for some strange reason.
Those two theories seem to be at odds with each other in a major way. If time and distance is important, that is more likely to prove that Stride's killer was the one seen attacking her and less likely that Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same person, not the other way around.
Is Glenn's theory possible? Sure. But it seems rather curious to call it common sense or logic when the same argument in one instance disproves the argument in the other instance.
Dan |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 1:49 pm: | |
Objective schmobjective. If you want your "intellectual purpose" to fly, you must equip it with more holistic wings. Merely "exposing the weakness of opposing arguments" is insufficient purpose for an argument. What you need do is offer a full-scale solution of your own to the case, explaining and agreeing with all known evidence, which tells us more than we already know. Anything less is mere mudslinging. In other words, although opposing arguments may have their weaknesses, there might be some previously unearthed fact that justifies them.
Modis schmodis. The modis operandi is NOT the "polar opposite" of what happened in Mitre Square. There are many similarities. If you want to go for polar opposite, you have to have rattlesnake venom, longswords, that kind of thing. Not a cut across the left carotid artery, such as occured in both instances.
And all this about Diemschutz. Diemschutz Schmiemschutz. What is the connection between Diemschutz appearing and Diemschutz preventing mutilations? How do we know what was happening behind the green gate? Maybe the murderer needed to do some personal thing after cutting Stride's throat, so as to undertake mutilations thereupon.
Schmanity, schmlindness, schmnothing.
Schmaddam
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 655
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hi Wolf
Thanks for clearing that one up.
Well, as I said before, I take on board the comparatively shallow nature of the cut, and Phillips's opinion concerning the knife. I can't say I'm happy with Phillips's scenario, though - but then it's difficult to find a scenario that fits this baffling murder.
Take the cachous. If Stride had been seized and forced to the ground, surely she'd have dropped the whole packet, and not just a few into the gutter? If we add Blackwell's suggestion that she was pulled backwards by her scarf, the cachous become even more mystifying.
Robert |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 2:47 pm: | |
Hi all,
The concept of 10 missing minutes doesnt make any sense to me, because it seems entirely plausible that Schwartz's man would kill Stride, then leave the scene without doing any mutilations... he doesn't want to hang around because he has already been seen by Schwartz and worries Schwartz might go and notify police.
Another point: as to Schwartz's testimony as printed in the newspaper.. this differs from the police report doesnt it. I don't think the police report mentions a man who appears to be drunk approaching Stride. Also, was not the Star often in the habit of embellishing the stories it printed?
Finally a quick point on the domestic dispute angle... it is one thing to talk about Kidney beating or abusing Stride. I think it takes a different sort of person altogether to slit a person's throat. ie. a psychopath. I don't understand why people seem to brush this aside, saying that Stride was killed in a domestic altercation. It just doesnt seem right to me.
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 127
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 5:21 pm: | |
Hi there
Dan Norder is totally wrong, I'm afraid, to applicate the time/distance-factors on the Schwartz man and to claim that I am being inconsistent when I link the two murders together with these factors, and at the same time exclude Shwartz's man as the killer. These time/distance-factors, that I've often referred to as being my basic arguments, have nothing whatsoever to do with this assaulting man.
The man seen by Schwartz has almost automatically -- and uncritically -- been accepted as Stride's killer, but the only thing that makes him interesting in this context is the fact that he was seen bothering and assaulting Stride a few minutes before the murder. So what? Why does that makes him the murderer?
I may sound cocky at his stage, but it's late in Sweden and I 'm a bit tired, so bare with me -- especially as I've during the last weeks have tried to answer the same questions over and over again.
Let's look at the man's behaviour. I am supposed to believe, that after he have trown Stride to the ground and she have shouted "No!" three times -- seen by at least one person or two (depending on which role we choose to give the other man) -- he then drags her into the yard and kills her, after the scen both he and Stride has made, instead of leaving! I don't think so! And since I believe she was a Ripper victim, it also doesen't fit his presumed behaviour. Jack the Ripper would most certainly take off and leave the location immediately as he was spotted; Schwartz's man in that case didn't (if we assume he was the killer).
But even if he was the Ripper or not, I find it hard to believe that the assaulting man should stay behind and kill her after the commosion on the street, and I also think that Stride would be on her guard with this man after he already have assaulted her and thrown her to the ground. Some of the circumstances (like the cachous) indicate that she, like the other Ripper victims, were taken by surprise, something that most possibly couldn't be the case with Schwartz's man. That is what my common sense tells me.
There are no necessary time/geographical links to apply in this scenario. My dismissal of this man as her killer is based on other reasons; I've used the above named factors to link the two murders together -- that is someting completely different.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 10:36 pm: | |
By modus operandi, my dear Radka, I refer to many factors, but largely to the 'approach.' The man in Hanbury & Mitre Square used persuasion; the barbarian in Berner Street rough-handled Liz Stride in front of spectators and then quite idiotically yelled. Of course, you might now & then offer up some of your own views rather than continue to remain in the safety of your obscurity while giving freely of your cranky editorials. Until you do, I can really only judge the power & the glory of your analysis on the Al Quida-Dirty Bomb Diversion theory of a year ago.
" What you need do is offer a full-scale solution of your own to the case, explaining and agreeing with all known evidence, which tells us more than we already know."
Yes! And what You need to do is to offer a solution, too. Here we agree entirely. So why don't we both live up to these standards? It must be four or five years now since you first announced that you have "solved the case." I'll tell you what. I'm about five or six months away from finishing my thesis. Why don't you clean your desk, sharpen your penicil, and get your own solution ready for public consumption? We can then let the world at large decide who is really groping along in schmlindness ?
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 53
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 11:00 pm: | |
Hi,
I'm not so sure Stride's throat wound is all that much different from Eddowes. The depth is such that it cuts muscle just over the spinal column. Eddowes wound goes all the way through, but these depths are very similar on the left side.
Strides wound is reported as 6 inches in length while Eddowes is 6 to 7 inches. So similar length.
Stides wound just fails to sever completely the left cartoid artery, and leaves the right undamaged. Eddowes wound severs completely the left cartoid artery, and just punctures the right. Again, slightly shallower for Stride, by not markedly different from Eddowes.
Neither show the (2nd?) complete circular cut that both Chapman and Nichols showed.
There are all sorts of ways to explain why "Jack" might have left the scene with Stride. If he's the same man as who assaults her, he may have 1) killed her because she had a good look at him 2) fled in case "pipe man" or "Schwartz" fetch the police. So, he could have left before Diemshutz shows up. Or, if Jack's not the same fellow as Strides assailant, we have the usual "pony interference" scenerio. Finally, if Stride is not a Ripper victim, then who ever her killer is, he leaves after killing her because he has no intention of mutilating her.
Any of these, and probably more, explanations seem to fit. Personally, I find the throat wound similarities between Stride and Eddowes as possibly suggesting the same killer (and therefore Jack). I've included a comparison (quoting source material) in the victims thread for Stride (Long Liz the murder I think is the title of it).
If this line of examination doesn't get us anywhere (for reasons explained in the above mentioned posting), I'm not sure how much further we can go without some other new evidence being found.
Anyway, if there are any medical experts out there, I would really appreciate any comments on the similarites I've noted. Again, a more complete comparison is made elsewhere, but as that thread is inactive lately, perhaps comments should be made here? Thanks.
- Jeff
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
