|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 129
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 11:14 pm: |       |
Hi Jeff,
Although I'm having trouble to see the assaulting man as the killer (based on my objections above), I think you made a very good summary of realistic alternatives and scenarios. And I agree, it is probably hard to get any further unless new facts or evidence in either directions is presented.
One of the sanest message posts in a long time, Jeff. Had to give you some stars for that.
I'll study your contribution to the thread mentioned.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 9:14 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Something you wrote got me thinking (always a dangerous thing in a woman!  ):
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.
As we know, Jack was on the prowl that night. What we don't know for sure is where he was in the hour or two leading up to his encounter with Eddowes. But if he had been around to witness the assault on Stride, it’s entirely possible that he would have waited in the wings until he was sure she was by herself again, coming on stage as if to offer some assistance and sympathy – perhaps even a present of the cachous as a token of his good intentions (if she hadn’t pulled them out of her own pocket in the immediate aftermath of the assault). Momentarily off her guard, she would not have been expecting her good Samaritan to go even further than the brute who had just had a go at her. Liz and Jack would have been equally powerless to resist each other: Liz having no time to drop the cachous, or cry out as she had when previously assaulted; Jack unable to turn his back on this God-given opportunity to 'clean up' Dutfield’s Yard. His possible reasons for not being ready, willing or able to mutilate on this occasion have been gone through before.
Yes, I know it’s speculation, but surely not much worse than anyone else’s?
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 236
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Caz,
IMHO...its better than mosts.
Im not sure if Stride belongs to Jacks series but your senario seems ok to me...apart from the cachous. She had the packet in her hand did she not ?
An extravagant gesture ? I'd have just offered her the one...but Im tight that way.
All stems from a Scots mother and a half Jewish father who happens to be half Eiorish as well !!
Confused and slighty disturbed Monty
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 658
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 12:08 pm: | |
Hi Caz
That would tie in with your earlier suggestion that Jack may have followed the women to see if they had a pimp. If he saw someone attack Stride with impunity, he'd know that she didn't have a pimp.
But the cachous are gnawing away at me too.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 1:34 pm: | |
Hi,
I think you may be heading in the right direction, I have a strong feeling that The Ripper' attacked his victims after obsevation for a period of time, I think he followed Nichols down whitechapel road , and started accosting her in Brady street, before killing her in Bucks row, he then witnessed Chapman and a man of shabby genteel appearence outside number 29 Hanbury st, and when their business was completed, moved in , I believe he may well have witnessed the attack on Stride, and may have well approached her when her attacker had left and Schwartz, and the pipe man had gone, also I believe he attacked Eddowes after the man seen with her had left Church passage, and she was alone, also Although I Am not cetain with kelly, her Killer may have moved in after a client had left the room.
My opinion I should add, but I believe Jack to have been a cold killer, who would not have approached his victims with good behaviour , or any fourplay, simply attacking them with ferocity, and intense force. the brusing on the victims showed that there was no gentleness in his approach, or at the moment of attack.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi All,
Monty, Robert,
Sorry, I didn't explain my thinking on the cachous too well. As others have expressed doubts as to whether Stride would have clung on to the packet during the witnessed assault, I merely wondered if she may not have been holding the packet at that point. If the cachous found their way into her hand between the first assailant's departure and her killer's surprise attack (either because she took them from her own pocket to have one herself and perhaps offer one to the man who had strolled over to see if she was ok, or because her killer handed the packet to her), it might explain why they remained in her grasp.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 659
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
Hi Caz
Yes, I agree that the cachous probably found their way into her hand after Schwartz's man had cleared off. I'm just puzzled as to what scenario would allow them to stay in her hand during the killer's attack. If Phillips is right, she was forced to the ground - still clutching the cachous.
But I agree that the killer may have acted as a good Samaritan.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 54
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 4:49 pm: | |
Caz,
That's an interesting new twist to a 2nd attacker for Stride. Personally, I find it more difficult to assume that her first assailent leaves, and a 2nd just happens to come along. It's possible, of course, but the time interval is pretty small and the times we have for Schwartz's sighting and the body finding are close enough that if errors of time occur (either or both by a couple minutes), we may be talking just enough time to kill Stride and leave and get far enough away that Diemshutz doesn't notice him when he shows up. He doesn't report anyone in the street as far as I know, so if Stride's killer leaves the yard before that, he must be far enough away to avoid being noticed. Noticed is different from being seen. Diemshutz may have "seen" him, but not noticed him because before the body is found, he has no reason to pay attention to people "way down the street". So when he recalls the event, he recalls the street as empty.
Anyway, your scenerio makes a connection between the 1st attack and the proposed 2nd attack; as if the 2nd was "inspired" by the first. A "clever Jack" may even have figured that this would draw suspicion away from himself and onto the first guy.
Now, madly running into the woods to join the monkies, if this were the case then it might also explain the graffito. If Jack is watching things, hearing the first fellow call out Lipski, might have given him the impression that the first attacker was Jewish. If he also leaves the graffito, he may again be trying to point the fingers at "that first Jewish guy", etc.
Anyway, this is a very complicated series of speculations, and is of course most likely to be wrong. It's presuming quite a few unproven events, like 1) Jack is the 2nd attacker 2) Jack wrote the graffito, and others of course. Still, a nice "just so" story can be built starting from your idea.
And if Jack does offer the cachous as a "good will gift", it helps explain them as well.
So, it seems to me that for the scenerio involving a 2nd attacker, something like what Caz has suggested is probably the most reasonable starting point. The 2nd attacker was near enough to witness the first assault.
Now, if that's the case, and we name the 2nd attacker as Jack, we still have to explain why Jack is hanging around in that area when he appears to have spent most of his time north of Whitechapel road based on the other Ripper crimes (canonical as well as the "possibles")?
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 662
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
Hi Jeff
If Stride's killer left the yard before Diemschutz came along (rather than hiding behind the gates) why couldn't he have simply nipped round the corner into Fairclough St? Then Diemschutz wouldn't have spotted him. Fairclough St was almost next to Dutfield's Yard.
Robert |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 8:00 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
As you say, you have come to a conclusion about the Elizabeth Stride murder by combining the available facts with common sense and your instincts. I am doing the same thing but am also adding over thirty years study of the Whitechapel murders. After thirty plus years the conclusion that I have come to is that Stride was not a victim of the Ripper based on the facts and not on what "circumstances and conditions surrounding the murder we don't know about."
If one decides to theorize about what might have happened or what could have happened rather than what we know did happen, even if the facts are incomplete, then one can theorize that anything is true. Black can become white, up can really be down, etc. etc.. That is a game that I do not care to play.
1) Elizabeth Stride was the only Whitechapel murder victim killed south of the Whitechapel High Street, a clear demarcation line, perhaps even a barrier, that vividly indicates that one is leaving Whitechapel proper and are heading south. She is also murdered in a relatively quiet residential side street which does not have a history of attracting prostitutes or their customers.
2) At approximately 12:45 a.m. Stride is seen being attacked by a drunken man who throws her to the ground. Roughly fifteen minutes later she is found dead. This attacker cannot be the Ripper, we are told, because he had ample time to mutilate the body but didn't. Circular logic now comes into play. The Ripper didn't mutilate the body because he was disturbed. But how do we know that he was disturbed? Easy, because he didn't mutilate the body! Logically, however, if a woman is seen to be assaulted by a man at 12:45 a.m. and her dead body is discovered less than fifteen minutes later and the medical evidence shows that she could have been killed at around 12:45 a.m. at the time of the assault then the prime suspect is the man who was seen to assault her.
3) Stride was not strangled as were Nichols, Chapman and probably Eddowes.
4) Stride's throat was not cut as deeply as all the true Ripper victims.
5) Stride's throat was not cut as she was lying on her back as with all the true Ripper victims.
6) Stride's body was not placed on her back as with all the true Ripper victims.
7) A different, smaller, knife was used on Stride than was used on all the true Ripper victims.
All this adds up, in my mind, to a dissimilar killing to those done by the Ripper. I am not attempting to convince you that I am right and that you are wrong just as you cannot convince me that you are right based on the evidence that you have put forward. That's just the way it is.
Wolf. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 55
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 8:29 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
No reason to preclude that possibility comes to mind. All I meant to imply was that even if the killer was within "visible range" doesn't mean Diemshutz necessarily would have noticed him or recalled seeing him. Obviously, if the killer takes a route that puts him out of visible range by the time Diemshutz shows up, well, he can't have seen him. I was just thinking along the lines of the most difficult situation.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 56
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 9:00 pm: | |
Hi Wolf,
I think Stride's location, south of the main route through the area, is a point against Stride as a true Ripper victim. Also, the lack of mutilations, normally explained by interruption, cannot be used in conjunction as proof she was a Ripper victim for the very reasons you point out.
I'm not so sure points 4 through 7 are quite as strong though.
For example, Stride's throat was not as deep, but not markedly shallower than Eddowes. Stride's wound did not encircle the entire neck, but neither did Eddowes. Examination of Strides' wound with that of Eddowes' wound show a fair number of similarities that might suggest a common killer.
And, although Stride was not laying on her back when her throat was cut, it does appear she was laying on the ground. That is probably enough of a similarity, especially if Stride was not strangled and was struggling more than the others mentioned.
Her body was not placed on her back, but this position would be in preparation for mutilations. If the Ripper was interrupted, then haste may explain 1) lack of strangluation, 2) slightly shallower wound, 3) no time for mutilation so no need to "prepare" her for it.
And as to the smaller knife, I've never really understood this one? Since it appears her throat was cut by slicing across it, how could the length of the actual knife be determined? Just because the minimum size of the knife is smaller, doesn't mean a larger one couldn't have been used. Also, since it's mentioned that given her position a larger knife would be harder to use, might that not explain why the wound starts shallow, gets down to the muscle above the spinal colum, then tapers off again? Meaning, maybe the difference in the wound is because the knife was a bit big for such close quarters?
Anyway, all I'm saying is that the minimal evidence we have requires 1 assumption that, if true, explains all of the differences between Stride and the other Ripper victims. And that assumption is "interuption". By interuption though, I just mean that the Ripper felt he had to leave immediately (for example fearing that Schwartz was going for the police). If something like that did happen, then it's most likely that Stride is a Ripper victim and that explains all of the differences.
If, however, that assumption is false, then there's no strong reason to definately include her.
Unfortunately, proving or disproving interuption is impossible. There are enough known events that could be interuptions, but no proof they actually were. The comparison of Strides throat wound with that of Eddowes, however, might suggest a common link. My reading of the medical descriptions of Stride's and Eddowes' throat wounds doesn't indicate to me any great differences, but rather, they sound remarkably similar in length, direction, and depth.
Despite how I read it though, I'm not an expert on medical examinations or forensics. An expert might read the descriptions and find they are completely different and what appears to me to be similarities are only "commonalities". Meaning the kind of thing you find in most wounds of this type and so don't indicate a connection.
Because of this, I don't know how to view Stride. If she is a Ripper victim, then something interrupted him and that can explain all the other differences. If she's not a Ripper victim, then it's probable the killer just left after killing her and made his escape.
- Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 113
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 11:23 pm: | |
Hi Wolf,
I'm sure you've amassed a wealth of knowledge studying the case for 30 years. But many of us have also studied it for many years -- I, myself 13+ years for example. We are also well familiarized with the case.
Your points are mostly valid, but not conclusive. One point at which you err is what you call "circular reasoning" (your point 2). Stride's attacker is not discounted as her murderer "because he didn't mutilate her," but because he is far to clumsy in his operation to be our man. Attacking her in front of witnesses and shouting out does not fit the Ripper (Although I can't say I'm 100% certain he wasn't -- anyone can blow an operation!).
As to your other points:
(1) I really don't think the Ripper had a map in front of him with a boundary line drawn at Whitechapel High Street. If so, why?
(3) Lack of strangulation not proved, but assumed.
(4) Stride's throat was indeed cut very, very deeply.
(5) Uncertain on my part. I have a feeling that is not a conclusive finding, but I'll concede it to you at the moment.
(6) Explained by interruption (not necessarily by Diemschutz but possibly so) and lack of opportunity to mutilate.
(7) Not determined with certainty.
Andy
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 57
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 12:03 am: | |
Hi Andrew,
I think Wolf's point about crossing Whitechapple road is actually a resaonable point to make. It's not a physical map the Ripper would have, but a mental map of his surroundings. The dimentions of this mental map is not exactly the same as the dimentions of a real map, meaning our perceived distance between two points does not always correspond to the actual distance between two points.
As one spends more time in an area, the distance between two points seems "closer" than the distance to a location requiring you to go outside that "area". So, locations outside seem "further", making the percieved distance greater. Also, if you are a criminal, having to travel on a crowded road, or in an open area, makes the percieved distance greater (meaning, having the option to travel farther, but along safer routes, is perceieved as a shorter distance).
Landmarks, and such, that are used to create our spatial map, come into play as well. If getting to point X involves passing 5 landmarks (the park, the church, the store, the pub, the big tree) while getting to point Y passes just two (the lake, the statue), the second location will seem closer even if it's not. (these landmarks aren't related to the Ripper case! I just made up some things as examples).
Whitechappel road, being a major street, is a main street that puts the "Ripper" in danger. Crossing it puts you in a "different area", it's a major landmark of the area, and it puts you at risk of being seen if you have to return back over it. Therefore, Strides murder location would probably have made the Ripper (if he was involved) feel like he was quite a long way from home (where ever he goes afterwards; his "safe house" or whatever).
These kind of boundaries influence our normal behaviour as well. People will go to one store over another because they think it's closer when, in fact, it's not. Stride's murder, because it involves crossing this major road, while all the others are contained on the north side, is an important consideration and it does weigh against Stride as Ripper victim.
It's not definitive, of course, but it's one more piece to the puzzle that has to be considered. Just to show how it can fit in, though, this may also explain why the Ripper (going with that line for a moment) acted unusual in Stride's case. He's more edgy because he's outside of his comfort zone. He spooks at some sound and flees (the interuption scenerio).
Again, this is a just so story, and it's not offered as any kind of "final solution". At the moment, there are just too few constraints and too many possibilities.
- Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 114
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:56 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Wolf's points are all reasonable. The problem is that in my opinion he has overstated them in some cases and overestimated their importance in others. Of course, one may build up a rather strong circumstantial case with overstated facts -- and it might indeed be a good case if there are enough of them. It's a judgment call. In this case I'm not buying it. This is, of course, not meant as any personal slight against Wolf. We just disagree here.
I am not positive that Stride was a Ripper victim, but in my opinion the weight of evidence is stongly in favor of it.
Andy
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 130
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 7:05 am: | |
Caz!
Wow, I've only been away a day or two, and look at the amount of posts.
"Something you wrote got me thinking (always a dangerous thing in a woman!)"
I know ... (  right back at ya). 
Your scenario is indeed interesting and, I might add, something I can fully accept. As usual your thought as well grounded, I think.
The cachous is something of a difficult detail we probably never will understand without speculating too far. But I perfectly agree with your suggestion of events.
As for the Ripper acting as a good samaritan: well, who knows? I'd just be careful about pointing him out as "acting gentlemanny" in a more calculating and charming way, cause I'm not sure that was his personal characteristics (although I can't be sure). But that doesen't say, he couldn't have given her the packet of cachous. However, since they were used as breath refreshings, I would also find it rather likely that these were something a lot of the prostitutes carried with them, rather than be given as a present. They could have been found in her hand, because she was just about to use them, the moment she was killed. Well, I don't know, just rambling on here ...
All the best, Caz. Hope your book is going well.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 131
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 8:03 am: | |
Hi Wolf,
"I am doing the same thing but am also adding over thirty years study of the Whitechapel murders. After thirty plus years the conclusion that I have come to is that Stride was not a victim of the Ripper based on the facts and not on what "circumstances and conditions surrounding the murder we don't know about."
Then we have a problem; I congratulate you if you find the available facts and evidence in this case that strong and persuasive -- I think very few of us here would say that that is really the case. Still, you are the one doing most of the speculations here, not me.
You may have studied the case for a long time compared to me and many others, but that doesen't make your opinions worth more than anyone elses. There are a lot of authorities on the case that has worked with it just as long, and they usually disagree with each other on several points. So what does that prove? Such elitism I find rather dangerous. And sometimes fresh eyes can find new things that goes beyond those who with longer experience.
You say your thoughts and opinions on the case are based on facts. Still, most of the facts you're presenting, are not proven at all, so therefore you're doing a fatal mistake when you rely that fully on them -- I won't bother to comment your individual points, cause Jeff and Andy has already done this in an excellent way.
I would just say this:
When it comes to common sense; you still haven't explained what logic makes you estimate the assaulting man as Stride's killer, considering the objections I stated (that there was a scene of commosion and why he after this would take the risk of hanging about to kill her, as well as the fact that Stride probably after this was on her guard with this man after this incident). I find it rather curious that you choose not to elaborate your views on this matter more thoroughly -- now as we're talking logic.
Regarding boundaries and directions: If one should follow your line of argument here, then we also should exclude Eddowes as a Ripper victim, since she was murdered in an area that is sited totally isolated from the others, and even in a totally different district. I really don't follow your reasoning here. So I do not see why the location of Stride's murder should speak against her inclusion among the canonical victims. This is totally ungrounded speculations.
Your assumption regarding the yard and Berner Street as off-territory for prostitute activities is also a "fact" you wrongly rely too hard upon. This is based on three witness statements, but you forget that one of them took back this statement later on and changed his mind. Some other residents also comfirmed that the yard in question was an "unsafe area" and that couples were seen solicitating there at several times after dark, and that some of the residents found this to be a problem. This at least seriously questions the idea about the area being that much different than the others or its "harmlessness" in this respect.
I'm afraid we'll never agree on this point, Wolf.
I don't mean to disrespectful, but if you've studied the case for thirty years, why are you so uncritical towards the available "facts"? One important sign of experience on these matters, is when one applies a critical view upon the "facts" and doesen't take them for granted as unquestionable truths -- that is something I've learned during my years as a crime historian studying very old cases, and that's why I find common sense a valuable assett to fill in the gaps where the "facts" become uncertain and hard to comfirm (which mostly is the case). And I'm afraid most of the "facts" you base your arguments on are not stated as proven by anyone working on the case.
That being said, it definitely creates interesting discussions. Once again, I prefer not to get redundantly antagonistic here, but just settle with the realization that we see completely different on these matters, and that's OK with me.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
I don't find Wolf's points overstated. I find them entirely reasonable.
Jeff--Hi. "If the Ripper was interrupted, then haste may explain 1) lack of strangluation"
Sorry, but I don't follow this. There is ample indication that the Ripper strangled the earlier victims, then then cut their throats, then carried out the mutilations. If you are arguing that the Stride murder is part of a series, than it is Sept. 30th and he has so far been entirely successful in his routine. If he is now suddenly interrupted (and there is no evidence for this) why aren't we just finding a strangled woman? You still have to concede a change in m.o., and (it seems to me) still are adding an unknown element to account for that change.
And Andy, surely the odd attack witnessed by Schwartz is a dramatic enough departure from the earlier murders that it can't be dismiss it by saying "anyone can botch an operation"??
If you don't like my take on this, consider the combined opinions of Messrs. Begg, Fido, & Skinner:
"The assault witnessed by Schwartz, made by a man whose drunkeness, threatening shout of "Lipski", and continuing ferocity in the presence of male witnesses is all quite incompatible with normal conduct of serial murderers. And if Stride was not killed by the man seen by Schwartz, this leaves the extraordinary coincidence that she was attacked twice in the same place in the space of about ten minutes."
The Ripper preyed on the weakest, sickliest, most drunken women he could find, and (most probably) had them lead him back to dark, secluded spots.
By the way, according to the experts, "no extravasation of blood" in Stide's head or neck is one indication that she wasn't asphyxiated (strangled).
What I find frustrating in this discussion is the assumption that what we are seeing isn't the whole can of tomales. It seems to me to be a cop-out to add Good Samaritans and the like. The term "interruption" is also entirely loaded, and pre-supposes that the murderer intended to continue his act beyond what we are seeing. What evidence is there for this? For instance, even if the murderer was behind the gates when Diemschutz rolled up, all one can really say is that the murderer was still present at that moment--not that he was 'interrupted.'
The cachous are sometimes being used to suggest a second attacker, but I still find this weak. Stride is on her left side, her left arm extended towards the deadwall of the IWMC. Her body was at an angle, covering a narrow gutter, with her head on one side of the gutter, and her feet nearly touching the wall. There were cachous scattered in the gutter. There is considerable confusion, but as I imagine the scene, this is consistant with her being dragged backwards approximately 18' inside the gate and slightly downhill. (There is mud caked on the left-side of her body). If she was attacked while once in the yard, one might more likely expect to find the cachous sprinkled between the gutter and the wall of the IWMC, as she is angled away from the wall, and the attacker evidently stood on her right.
|
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 115
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
And Andy, surely the odd attack witnessed by Schwartz is a dramatic enough departure from the earlier murders that it can't be dismiss it by saying "anyone can botch an operation"??
R.J.,
If you had read my post carefully you would have seen that I am not suggesting that the man who yelled "Lipski" was JTR. What I said was that I'm not 100% certain that he was not -- because anything is possible. I thought I made it clear that it was quite out of character for JTR to be so clumsy (but even the best of us has a bad day now and again).
So that there is no confusion:
1. I do not think Wolf's points are unreasonable and I did not say they were unreasonable. I have, however given my reasons for disagreeing with them. You are certainly free to disagree with me.
2. I do not think the man who pushed Stride down is JTR, nor do I think that man is her killer (because I think JTR is her killer, for other reasons). But I do think it is barely possible that this man is JTR and her killer.
And also, when I say that I have studied the case for 13 years, I don't mean anything like full-time study, of course. But it has been 13 years since I started becoming interested and reading and researching the case.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.
Andy
|
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 12:04 am: | |
Jack the Ripper was never interrupted by Diemshutz or anybody else. All you have to really do is examine the times properly.
Therefore, there are two possibilities:
1)Stride was killed by Kidney-domestic(all he wanted to do)
2)Jack the Ripper killed her and cutting her throat was all he wanted to do |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 10:49 pm: | |
"5) Stride's throat was not cut as she was lying on her back as with all the true Ripper victims.
6) Stride's body was not placed on her back as with all the true Ripper victims."
These are not very legitimate observations, IMHO. The difference between Stride and the other victims on these two points are very small.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 2:37 pm: | |
RJ--
Here are a twenty points from my A?R theory, to counter the notion that I am a cranky obscure editorialist. Let's see if you can give away an equal amount of free theoria, buddy boy, right here right now:
1. The Whitechapel murderer was responsible for six murders, Tabram through Kelly.
2. He's covered in the A-Z.
3. He was not a lust murderer.
4. He was a 100% organized murderer.
5. He was the man seen by Schwartz (not the pipeman,) Lawende, Harris, Levy, and Mrs. Durwood.
6. He was not the man seen by Hutchinson.
7. He did not kill to obtain biological specimens.
8. He wrote the Lusk letter and the GSG, but not anything else.
9. He murdered Mary Jane Kelly after she was seen that morning by Caroline Maxwell.
10. He was not Ostrog, Klowsowski, Bury, Deeming, Maybrick, Kidney, Cream, Druitt, Netley, Gull or the Prince.
11. He lit the fire in Kelly's room for special purposes known to him and unimagined by Ripperology to date.
12. The reason why he stopped is right in the evidence.
13. The reason why he started is right in the evidence.
14. (12) and (13) have not yet been imagined by Ripperology.
15. The reason for the long delay between the Eddowes murder and the appearance of the GSG is right in the evidence.
16. The reason for the long delay between the Eddowes murder and the Kelly murder is right in the evidence.
17. Significant clues can be found in the writings of Anderson and Swanson, not yet understood by Ripperology.
18. The notion that he went into history unknown may well not be true. Numbers of people may have known who he was.
19. He was a very smart man, PhD level IQ I'd say.
20. He was in a period of significant personal instability during the Terror, possibly related to alcohol. He may have been under the influence at all the murder scenes.
That enough for you, Mr. RJ? Now give us twenty from your own theory, please.
Saddam
|
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 9:46 am: | |
Regarding the cachous, Dr. Blackwell stated:
"The left hand, lying on the ground, was partially closed, and contained a small packet of cachous wrapped in tissue paper." Dr. Phillips later added: "Similar ones were found in the gutter."
Is there anything in the testimony that should preclude us from thinking that perhaps the killer placed them in her hand after death for reasons known only to himself?
Regards, VIncent |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 4:57 am: | |
Perhaps the solution to the cachous mystery,is to read properly what Schwartz is reported to have said to the newspaper reporter.
"he placed his hand on her shoulder,and twisted her to the ground".So not a vicious attack as seems the general opinion,and given that Schwartz was in a hurry to depart,even the twisting motion may have been of her own doing,and he mistook what really happened.
The effect of twisting away to avoid an unwelcome encounter,may have caused Stride to lose balance and fall,but still allowing her to control that fall.In this case she could still have grasped the cachous ,and supported her fall with a clenched fist,thereby retaining a hold of the cachous.
You cannot compare the report given to the newspaper reporter with the official police report of the incident,as the latter to my knowledge has never been printed.
It was Arnold who suggested an attack by the drunk,but we do not know on what information he based his beliefs.The autopsy reports do not indicate a sustained and vicious assault.
The kill was quick and efficient,with a minimum amount of injury to the body.
H.Mann. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 9:41 pm: | |
Common sense has been killing the Ripperologists' cat for over a century. Hear the wind howl! Wooooooooo! Wooooooooo!
Saddam
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
