|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 12:57 pm: |       |
Hi All,
I still think it wouldn't be that much of a coincidence for Jack, who was on the prowl that night, maybe loitering here and there, but making his way towards his preferred killing grounds (Mitre Square was fifteen minutes' walk away from Berner Street), to have been near enough to witness the man going up to Stride and assaulting her. Schwartz witnessed it. Is there a rule that says it is too much of a coincidence for a murderer, on the lookout for prostitute victims in the area, to witness an assault on one of the local prossies?
If this could have happened, and if it did happen, the next bit is easy. Jack either ignores this woman, who no doubt is looking a bit vulnerable and shaky after just being pulled around, in favour of his later encounter with Eddowes, or he grabs the opportunity for a quick appetiser while the going is good, attacking Stride before she can say "Cachous, Jack Robinson?"
Love,
Caz |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 116
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:00 pm: | |
The term "interruption" is also entirely loaded, and pre-supposes that the murderer intended to continue his act beyond what we are seeing.
No, it doesn't pre-suppose this. It (post-) supposes it. I don't go into the Stride case presupposing that the murderer would have continued with mutilation. I post-suppose, or deduce, this supposition from the existing facts. It is nevertheless a supposition, as is your supposition that Stride was not killed by JTR.
The two main facts concerning the Stride case are:
1. Stride was found murdered with a deeply cut throat but no other mutilations.
2. A near-certain Ripper murder with mutilations took place shortly thereafter in the East End.
How do we put these two facts together? With suppositions. The relative weight we give to our suppositions in this case depends heavily upon the way we weigh the subsidiary "facts", such as those you cite above, vs. the likihood that two such murders by different killers would take place within such a short time frame and so close together. It is entirely a judgment call. I would not call either conclusion unreasonable, but I (unsuprisingly) favor mine. And it is not entirely ingenuous to label it a pre-supposition, now is it? It seems to me that if anyone is pre-supposing it is those who seem to pre-suppose that everyone who thinks Stride to be a Ripper victim has that as a forgone conclusion before looking at the facts.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 664
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
Hi RJ,Wolf
Do either of you know whether Phillips expressed his opinion on whether Stride was a Ripper victim? It would help me if I knew this.
I don't see the cachous as being a problem for the notion that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim - they're a problem whoever killed Stride. But I do think the cachous are a problem for the idea that Stride was pulled by the scarf, or seized by the shoulders and forced to the ground. Also for the idea that Schwartz's man killed Stride, as this means she would have taken them out in his presence after being attacked by him.
It looks as if the body was slightly moved after the murder - Stride's right hand was bloody, and had probably originally been lying in the pool of blood or against her throat. As it's difficult to see how she could have moved it after her throat was cut, I suppose someone - either the murderer, or a member of the crowd that gathered - did move her hand.
Phillips thought the blue discolourations were attributable to the murderer, when he forced her to the ground. But that would imply that Stride was seized, turned round and flung to the pavement by Schwartz's man, without this leaving any bruising or pressure marks (since Phillips mentions no other marks that could have been caused by this).
I know we have to give due weight to Phillips's testimony, but the police at the time would have done this too. After weighing up the various factors, they did regard Stride as a Ripper victim.
However, there is great uncertainty in my mind about Stride's murder. I feel that any theory about Jack which relied heavily on information gleaned from the Stride murder, would be forging a chain with a very weak link. So although I feel on balance that she was a Ripper victim, her murder may be almost useless as far as helping us identify Jack is concerned.
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 3:36 pm: | |
Robert----An indirect answer. Phillips describes the injury to Stride's throat as "Three quarters of an inch over undivided muscle then becoming deeper" ie., "about an inch"--"dividing sheath and vessels." So the cut is only an inch deep at the deepest spot. A bloody mess, mind you, and not something I'd wish on anyone, but not what I'd call deep when compared to Nichols, Chapman, etc. Compare with the murder of Eddowes forty-five minutes later:
"all the deep structures were severed to the bone the knife marking invertebral cartilages." (Dr. Brown)
I don't know whether or not Phillips directly gave his final opinion on the matter. He did say that Stride's throat injuries had a "great disimilarity" to Annie Chapman's. (Of course he isn't suppose to draw conclusions at an inquest, anyway, only give evidence)
As I see it, the main (and almost only) argument for including Stride is really the statistical argument, which I dislike. But I think it's fairly clear that the last half of your last sentence stands as a very reasonable warning until the oracle speaks. Cheers. |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 117
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 3:56 pm: | |
Robert,
As to the cashous remaining in her hand, consider the rather similar case of Marie-Anne Mignonneau (cf. Victims -- General Discussion thread). To quote from the French article:
"La main droite crispée, tenait encore une poignée de son humide."
Now, my French is a bit rusty but doesn't this say that the victim's right hand was found still tightly clenched? It goes on to say that this circumstance indicated that she was attacked by surprise.
Also consider the case of the young boy murdered by Jesse Pomeroy, whose hands were found clenched so tightly that his fingernails were imbedded in his palms (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/pomeroy/1.html).
So it's not so strange that Stride would be found still clutching her cashous.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 666
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 5:40 pm: | |
Hi RJ, Andy
RJ, apart from the police's opinion at the time and the "statistical argument", there are one or two other things that might point to Jack - such as Phillips's pointing to some sort of knowledge on the part of the murderer as to where to cut the throat.
But it's quite likely I'll swing backwards and forwards on the Stride issue.
Andy, thanks for those links. I wouldn't have seen any problem with the cachous if, say, Stride had had her throat cut while standing, and blood had spurted against the wall. I've been told that such hand-clenching is called cadaveric spasms, and comes with sudden death or shock.
But Phillips is saying that the murderer first forced her to the ground and then cut her throat. Yet still she hung on to the cachous. Well....he must have done it with lightning speed and dexterity, it seems to me. That itself sounds a bit like Jack. It doesn't seem to sit well with a drunken man as the murderer.
The awful Pomeroy murder seemed to involve hands clenched in agony. I think Blackwell said that it would have taken a while for Stride to bleed to death. If she was conscious during this time, she would have been in agony. But the right hand wasn't clenched, was it? Only the left.
Sorry to go on about the cachous, but I can't get away from them - first with Schwartz's man, and then with the yard.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 118
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 7:39 pm: | |
Well....he must have done it with lightning speed and dexterity, it seems to me. That itself sounds a bit like Jack. It doesn't seem to sit well with a drunken man as the murderer.
Now we're back to whether the man who pushed Stride in view of witnesses was her killer or JTR. I think the answer to both is no. But I do think she was subsequently and fatally attacked by JTR.
I do understand now the nature of your argument about the cashous. However, I don't think it conclusive. For example, Liz might have thought she was being manhandled but not in danger of serious injury when pushed. If so, she might have consiously wanted to preserve her cashous.
Andy
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 8:29 pm: | |
If you look at the eyewitness descriptions furnished by Schwartz and Lawende they are the only two that coincide. For Tabram we've got a soldier, for Nichols nothing, for Chapman Mrs. Long's "Foriegner", for Kelly a dandy. But as I have pointed out before on these boards, a careful reading of Schwartz and Lawende's accounts will reveal substantially the same description. There are minor discrepancies such as would be expected due to human error and they use different words. But if you visualize what they are saying it is very close. I believe Lawende saw the same man as Schwartz and that makes Stride almost certainly canonical. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 669
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 29, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hi Andy, Diana
Andy, it may have been like that. It's one explanation, anyway.
Diana, if Schwartz's man was Lawende's man and both were Jack, would Jack have made a scene like that? I can imagine he might have been into mistreating women at various times, but in public, just before killing one of them? And then, after the street attack, would Stride decide she wanted to suck a cachou, with him standing there? Or have gone into the yard with him?
Also, the descriptions given by Lawende and Schwartz are both fairly vague, aren't they?
Robert |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 2:26 pm: | |
Caz wrote:
"Jack either ignores this woman, who no doubt is looking a bit vulnerable and shaky after just being pulled around, in favour of his later encounter with Eddowes, or he grabs the opportunity for a quick appetiser ..."
Caz, either I am interpreting what you wrote incorrectly or you have a theory percolating.
Were you simply implying that since Jack had some time on his hands while on the hunt for anyone, not specifically Eddowes, he murdered Stride? Or are you saying that he had specifically targeted Eddowes?
Thanks in advance!
Billy |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 3:50 pm: | |
R.J.; One point about the cachous; In the newspaper version of the inquest, Dr. Blackwell admits that it was his fault that, in handing the packet to the other Doctor, some cachous were spilled into the gutter.
Joan |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 9:52 am: | |
Joan--Thank you; an astute observation. What a clumsy oaf Blackwell is for meddling with my theory.
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 39
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 6:49 pm: | |
Hi all.
So. I post a series of facts surrounding the Stride murder which I happen to see as a chain of evidence that points to Stride not being a Ripper murder victim. Each bit of evidence, or link, may not, in and of itself, seem conclusive but taken together they explain my reasoning behind excluding Stride. However, selectively pointing to perceived flaws in individual links might weaken the argument somewhat but it does not break the chain, and will not convince me otherwise, I am afraid. Especially if your counter argument is flawed.
Jeff and Andrew -
Jeff. Various things that you have said about the wound to Stride's throat are puzzling. Claiming that "Stride's throat was not as deep, but not markedly shallower than Eddowes," or "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." are statements not supported by the medical evidence. Neither is Andrews observation that "Stride's throat was indeed cut very, very deeply." (very, very deeply?)
As RJ has already posted, the wound to Stride's throat was not as deep as that to Eddowes, (Or Nichols, Chapman and Kelly for that matter). Claiming that it was, based on your own readings of the medical reports, while the medical evidence and the doctors testimony says otherwise, does not help your arguments.
The wound to Stride's throat started off on the left side and cut through tissue, but not deep enough to cut muscle, for the first three quarters of an inch. The cut then deepened just enough to sever the sheath and almost divide the vessels on that side but did not go deep enough to totally sever the left carotid artery. The wound then travelled across the throat severing the wind pipe, but did not go much deeper than that, then trailed off so that the wound to the right side of the neck was described as "superficial"and did not even touch the vessels on that side. With a sharp knife not much pressure would be required to achieve this wound.
Rather than the throat being cut "very, very deep," as Andrew has suggested both doctors Phillips and Blackwell offered that they had seen greater, and deeper, wounds from suicides. This point of dissimilarity with the other victims was important enough for Coroner Baxter to mention when he summarized the case for the jury. As Baxter stated "...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. But no such instrument was found, and its absence made suicide an impossibility. The death was, therefore, one by homicide..." So, under slightly different circumstances, the wound to Stride's throat might not have even been considered to have been caused by murder. This is not the work of the Ripper.
Catherine Eddowes wound, on the other hand, started on the left side with a superficial cut that then quickly deepened cutting through the sheath, all the vessels, tissue, and muscle of the neck. The cut was deep enough and forceful enough to sever all the structures of the neck right down to the vertebrae, which were notched by the blade. The wound continued cutting through the wind pipe and ended by cutting through, but not totally severing, the vessels on the right side of the neck. This deep wound to the throat, in which all the structures of the neck are severed and the bones of the spinal column are marked by the knife, is mirrored in the wounds to Nichols, Chapman and Kelly but not Stride.
Jeff said a very interesting thing. "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." Exactly. Certain similarities, which would be consistent with any cut throat, are not good enough to get over the differences between Stride's and Eddowes wounds. Ask yourselves the question, what would the possible differences between a throat wound such as Stride's and any other "from ear to ear " wound? Why do you think the Stride wound is unique enough to be only considered as the work of the Ripper? And we are only talking about the wound itself here, nothing else.
Andrew, you stated, in response to fact number 3, "Lack of strangulation not proved, but assumed." Are you saying that there are indications that Elizabeth Stride was strangled? I assume that she was not strangled because the medical evidence and the doctors testimony does not support such a conclusion. If you doubt this, as you must since you brought it up, please explain why?
As to the size of the knife I am only reporting on what Dr Phillips believed. Dr. Phillips was an experienced police surgeon who, at the time of the Stride inquest, had examined both the Chapman murder and the Stride murder, having seen both bodies in situ, and having studied the circumstances surrounding both.
Theorizing that the knife could have been longer, or, that a longer knife might have caused the shallow wound doesn't even attempt to show why you believe Dr. Phillips was wrong. In reality that is what you are doing. You are saying that Phillips must be wrong in his educated opinion and you are doing it without addressing the question, why does your opinion supercede that of an expert medical witness who was actually there at the time of the murders? I have merely reported what Phillips had said and did not offer any personal opinion.
Wolf. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 40
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 7:04 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
I wrote that my conclusions are partially based on over thirty years of studying the Whitechapel murders, which is a fact. Your bizarre reaction was to state that "that doesn't make you unique or necessarily make your opinions worth more than anyone else's. Please show me where I made the claim that it does? For reasons only known to yourself you also see this as "elitism" which you find "dangerous." This is an interesting insight into the way you see things. If my years of study annoy, or bother, or offend, or frighten you I am truly sorry and deeply apologize.
Glenn you claim, "You say your thoughts and opinions on the case are based on facts. Still, most of the facts you present, are not proven at all." So most of the seven points that I offered are "not proven at all." Really.
Regarding point 1, Glenn, please name any other Ripper victim who was murdered south of the Whitechapel High Street. Please explain why the Whitechapel High Street, a fairly wide, very busy main thoroughfare which divides Whitechapel proper from St George in the East, is not a clear demarcation line.
You state that "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." Does this mean that you think that there was some clear and concrete barrier that the killer had to cross in order to enter the City? In order for the killer to enter St George in the East he would have to make a conscious decision to do so. He would have to consciously decide to travel south and out of his preferred killing grounds. He could not merely wander out of Whitechapel proper and find himself in St. George in the East. However, he could just wander into the City without even realizing it so your argument is not supported.
Please explain the difference between the City and Metropolitan London, vis a vis, points of demarcation. If, in order to cross over into St George in the East one has to cross a wide roadway thronged with people and traffic, what barrier does one cross in order to wonder into the City? Is there a wall, a fence, armed guards, what?
Regarding Berner Street you amazingly had this to say "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."
Which witness "took back his statement later on and changed his mind." ? William West? This is the exchange between West and Coroner Baxter at the inquest-
Baxter- Do low women frequent Berner-street?
Wess - I have seen men and women standing about and talking to each other in Fairclough-street.
Baxter- But have you observed them nearer the club?
Wess - No.
Baxter- Or in the club yard?
Wess- I did once, at eleven o'clock at night, about a year ago. They were chatting near the gates. That is the only time I have noticed such a thing, nor have I heard of it.
This hardly supports your claim that he "took back his statement" or that he "changed his mind." Apparently, upon reflection, West added one incident that he had remember to his statement, something that had happened a year before, but he still maintained that it was unusual for this type of thing to happen in Berner Street.
You state that this is an "assumption" of mine and it is "a ‘fact' you wrongly rely too hard upon." However, it is based on the testimony of three witnesses who knew the street intimately and who, I would suspect, knew more about life on Berner Street than you do. Let me add to these witnesses testimony, if I may. Coroner Baxter, who had accesses to, and had read, all the police information regarding the murder and who had interviewed the witnesses had this to say about prostitution on Berner Street at the time of the Stride murder -
"...the police stated, and several of the witnesses corroborated the statement, that although many couples are to be seen at night in the Commercial-road, it was exceptional to meet them in Berner-street."
Tell me Glenn, why is your opinion that much more informed then Coroner Baxter's? Why is it that I should take your word over that of the Coroner, the police and the three witnesses? Once again, this is not my "assumption" but a "fact" offered by men who were actually there at the time. Explain why this is not proven? Why were Baxter, the police, and the witnesses at the inquest wrong, or lying? Who are the "other residents" who "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" ? When did these incidents take place?
Regarding point 2, at approximately 12:45 a.m. Stride was seen being attacked by a drunken man who threw her to the ground. Explain why this is not proven? Certainly the police believed this information so what information do you have to cast doubt on it? Roughly fifteen minutes later she was found dead. Again, Glenn, Explain why this is not proven?
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. This is basic police thought. You can theorize and ask what if's and maybe's all you want. You can state that this man wouldn't do this or would do that under the circumstances but Glenn, "This is totally ungrounded speculations," as you put it.
Since points 3 through 6 are all self evidently true, based on the facts and a comparison with the Ripper murders, then I ask you why any of them are not proven ? As for point 7, see above.
Wolf. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 143
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 10:48 pm: | |
Hello, Wolf,
What have you been up to? I've almost missed you - the board's been quite dull these last few days. Well, that was a lot to deal with, so let's get on with it.
Firstly:
"Your bizarre reaction was to state that "that doesn't make you unique or necessarily make your opinions worth more than anyone else's. Please show me where I made the claim that it does? For reasons only known to yourself you also see this as "elitism" which you find "dangerous." This is an interesting insight into the way you see things. If my years of study annoy, or bother, or offend, or frighten you I am truly sorry and deeply apologize."
I really think you had that one coming. I myself have nearly eight years of university studies behind me, so I don't get threatened that easily. But noone brags about their "thirty years of styding the Whitechapel murders" without implying something with it. What else would be the purpose of such a statement? And who cares, really? I just thought it was a stupid remark to make, since it is totally irrelevant in this context, unless it was meant to weaken the importance of the opponant's views, and really doesen't strengthen your arguments.
Now, you say that most of your facts are proven; I hate to dissapoint you, but that is not the case. Let's go over them one by one:
"Regarding point 1, Glenn, please name any other Ripper victim who was murdered south of the Whitechapel High Street. Please explain why the Whitechapel High Street, a fairly wide, very busy main thoroughfare which divides Whitechapel proper from St George in the East, is not a clear demarcation line."
No, I must admit, I don't understand why it should be. Why should a serial killer follow a "demarcation line"? But indeed, it would be interesting to hear your explanation to why this should be the case. I really don't see your point here. Sorry.
"Does this mean that you think that there was some clear and concrete barrier that the killer had to cross in order to enter the City?"
Absolutely not. You are the one talking about barriers here, and I just simply tried to apply your argument on a murder site that to me looks even more out isolated from the "killing ground" than Stride's. Look at the map and study the different murder sites' locations. I really don't see why Berner Street is far more off the killing ground than Buck's Row or Mitre Square. I may not be an expert on London geography, but that is obvious for anyone studying the map. Why should the broad Whitechapel Road stop him? You obviously think Whitechapel Road to be "a wall, a fence" instead, and I don't see why. What is the most risky element? To follow along a wide trafficated road or to cross it? I'm just trying to think myself into the situation. And do you really think the Ripper operated free of risk in the other murders? And if we assume that the Ripper was someone who relatively easy blended in among other people, that kind of reasoning is useless anyway.
Anyhow, I don't want to be misread here by anyone: I'm absolutely not excluding Eddowes from being a Ripper victim (God forbid!), I'm just trying to use your own arguments.
Yes, I was referring to William West, and in his case I must give you right to some extent; I probably was sloppy enough to -- in too much haste (sometimes I'm a bit too fast for my own good) -- refer to something that I've read in a second-hand source, which I usually don't. It's always embarrasing when that happens, and I wont smoooth or hide it, but I'm only human.
But then it becomes interesting. You say:
"However, it is based on the testimony of three witnesses who knew the street intimately and who, I would suspect, knew more about life on Berner Street than you do. [...] Tell me Glenn, why is your opinion that much more informed then Coroner Baxter's? Why is it that I should take your word over that of the Coroner, the police and the three witnesses?"
There were indeed conflicting opinions about the life on Berner Street. Why should Coronel Baxter know so much about the prostitution on Berner Street, or rather -- the absence of it? Did he walk there himself every night? He referred to a second-hand source from one of the police constables. I can't explain why the police detected so little activities of this kind on the street in question, but it was not the prostitutes' job to work right in front of the nose of the police -- not if they wanted to get any customers. It is well known that Commerial-road and Dorset Street were areas that had an extreme rate of this kind of activities, but this probably was partly a result of the many lodging houses sited there. But that doesen't mean that Berner Street didn't have its share. In fact, as I said in my post, other residents in the street comfirmed that the yard and the street itself was quite a "troubelspot" (and why should it be free of soliciting? -- we can fairly assume, that most streets in the East End were more or less centers of prostitution, mostly because a majority of the female non-married, poor inhabitants were involved in such an occupation, even though they called it something else, like "seamstress" or laundryness"...). This was appearently discovered during inquiries among other residents in the street. One of them was one Barnett Kentorrich of No. 38, who said: "I do not think the yard bears a very good character at night but I do not interfere with any of the people about here".
Then why should we believe him or any other rather than the three (plus Baxter) that you refer to? Well, the point is, that we shouldn't! I'm just trying to point out that there were indeed conflicting testimonies regarding the nature of the street. You, on the other hand, have taken for granted that your three witnesses are telling the truth and that the old assumption of Berner Street as a "cleaner" spot is correct.
Well, why should "your" witnesses lie? Actually, if you asked any of the inhabitants in the East End, you wouldn't get much response about the prostitutions occuring there. We can also see the same tendencies in the inquests connected with the murdered victims, where hardly anyone of the called witnesses wanted to admit that the women were prostitutes. The three wintesses you refer to had connections to the International Working Men's Club and they most certainly wouldn't admit to that "their" yard or street were frequented by prostitutes, due to the reputation of the club. This can't be comfirmed, but it can't be ruled out either -- it must be taken in consideration! You can't take ANY facts in this case for granted as truths.
"Regarding point 2, at approximately 12:45 a.m. Stride was seen being attacked by a drunken man who threw her to the ground. Explain why this is not proven? Certainly the police believed this information so what information do you have to cast doubt on it? Roughly fifteen minutes later she was found dead. Again, Glenn, Explain why this is not proven?"
Actually, now you are being silly, Wolf. You know as well as I do that these are proven facts indeed. The problem is that they are the only two points on your list that are proven.
"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. This is basic police thought. You can theorize and ask what if's and maybe's all you want. You can state that this man wouldn't do this or would do that under the circumstances but Glenn, 'This is totally ungrounded speculations,' as you put it."
Well, I'll never be able to see the logic in the fact that a man who've made such a noisy scene and were guilty of such clumsy behaviour during the assault (and we don't even know for sure how violent this assault was), should take the risk of murdering the woman in question shortly after. Especially as Stride would most certainly be on her guard with this man as he'd already had thrown her to the ground once. And especially as most circumstances on the murder spot showed that Stride had been murdered in a "surprise" attack, as in the other Ripper murders. I don't think that would be the case with the assaulting man. I do believe that his importance in the investigation is highly overrated and a dead end.
The problem with your kind of reasoning, is that you totally stir yourself blind on facts which you have an uncritical approach to, I'm afraid(and most of them can't really be regarded as facts in the first place). You may of course call my scenario speculation, that's fair, but I would rather see it as an alternative solution, based on common sense and my personal logic. I have absolutely no expectations of persuade you of anything regarding this matter. That would be waste of time.
Sorry 'bout the long post, folks. But there was a lot to chew this time.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 124
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 3:53 am: | |
Wolf,
My first inclination was to leave this argument alone since you are obviously not going to be dissuaded no matter what I might say. But since you addressed me specifically in regard to my points (and by the way, I do prefer being called "Andy"):
1. You have made much about my use of the somewhat redundant "very, very deeply" description of Stride's throat wound. Were I writing that again, I suppose I would have left out one "very" simply because such repititious modification is poor literary form. Her throat was cut very deeply, I'll leave it at that. I didn't say it was as deep as Eddowes or even nearly as deep as Eddowes. Her throat was cut deeply enough to kill her (regardless of whether that was the actual cause of death or not).
2. With regard to stragulation, I must admit I don't have the primary documents at my fingertips. If you insist, I'll go consult them. I do remember on this thread some discussion of there not being mention of her strangulation. If there is indeed no mention, then we are assuming she was not. On the other hand, if this was a marked difference from other victims, one would expect the examiner to state specifically that she was not strangled. In other words, it is peculiar that no mention is made of strangulation or lack thereof. I can only assume that the examiner was not able to tell. Regardless of descriptions, there is certianly no way we can tell, 100+ years on, such a detail without seeing the body or at least a very good photograph (and maybe not even then). If the examiner did say that she was not strangled, please point the reference out to me and I'll concede the point.
Wolf, as I said earlier, this is a judgment call. It really doesn't matter to me how deeply Stride's throat was cut or whether she or Eddowes were strangled or not strangled. (1) Serial killers do not always follow the exact same procedure, even on the same evening and (2) the very possible (I would say probable) interruption of the killer's work on Stride could account for any differences.
As to your argument on "barriers," I'm afraid the burden of proof is with you there. Simply pointing out that there were no murders south of Whitechapel High Street is not proof that he regarded that street as a barrier. If there is any logical barrier, it should have been that of the City boundary (as Glenn has pointed out) since that involved bringing in another police force and increasing his chance of capture.
Finally, Wolf, your tone has been most condescending. I don't mind your criticizing my arguments or finding fault with them. That's how we learn. But I have shown no disrespect for you. Why do you flavor your replies with insults?
And I have to agree with Glenn on your citation of your qualifications. OK, should we all count ours? How about 10 years of college/grad school and four degrees? If anyone should know something about doing research, I suppose it should be me. This is just silly. It doesn't prove a thing. My 12-year old daughter might pick up on a detail tomorrow that we both missed.
Cheers,
Andy
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 144
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 6:51 am: | |
Andy,
My compliments to you! Good work. Your stars are well earned. 
By the way, Wolf, Andy,
Regarding the strangulation, according to my police hand-books and my sources in the police it is possible to strangle someone in a way that the victim only gets stunned and no evident thumb or finger marks are shown. If she was strangled it wouldn't necessarily mean that she was strangled to death -- just to make her unconcious. Other signs of strangulation -- swollen tongue, congestion of face -- are not mentioned in the post-mortem, as far as I can see at a first glimpse. Another sign of strangulation is that the very fragile bone above the larynx gets broken due to pressure, and I can't so far see any account of this either. I'll check it out more thoroughly when I have more time at my disposal than I have at the moment, I just simply could have missed them.
We must also take in the possibility that there could be documents or pages in connection with the post mortem missing, though.
My point here is, that this shows at least that facts are inconclusive and hard to value -- and that nothing either way is proven. The strangulation detail -- like so many other aspects in this case -- we will probably never know for sure.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 301
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 8:12 am: | |
Hi Billy,
Just saw your question directed at my speculation. Yes, indeed, I was simply implying that if Jack had some time on his hands while on the prowl that night, and if his wanderings happened to take him along Berner Street (he could have had business of one sort or another, totally unconnected with murder, that resulted in him being there - I don't remotely understand why Wolf would impose a boundary on all Jack's comings and goings), he could have seen Stride being roughly handled and become aroused at the thought of being the one to finish her off, before hot-footing it back towards Wolf's idea of his comfort zone, where he encountered another likely victim, and risked hanging around long enough to have a ripping time of it - possibly mutilating for two, to make up for not feeling comfortable enough in Berner Street. After all, he did take two organs this time...
My speculation wasn't taking me as far as considering whether Jack may actually have had an 'appointment' booked with Eddowes (who did appear to be more intent on asking the time and leaving the police station than the police were on chucking her out) - I'll leave that to others. 
Love,
Caz
PS I'm off for a minor op on Wednesday, so I may not be around to read the boards much this week. Play nicely everyone.
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Glenn---Hello. It's only me, I suppose, but I find it somewhat ironic that while you refuse to entertain the "coincidence" of two attacks 45 minutes and half a mile apart and involving two different women, you readily accept the "coinicidence" of two attacks(?) ten minutes and twenty feet apart, and involving the same woman. As such, I can't really agree that this view represents logic, commonsense, and even 'sanity.'
About the best thing that can be said for including Stride is that Anderson & Co. evidently believed in a 'double event.'
If I may ask you and Andrew a question. Do you think Francis Coles was a Ripper victim?
Cheers. RP |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 147
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:09 am: | |
Hi, Palmer,
I see your point indeed and it's a good one. I've already answered that question recently, though. I'm not sure if it was you or Wolf that made that remark earlier though.
But I'll go over it again with pleasure. I don't find it ironic at all, simply because I think there are circumstances that speak against the assaulting man as Stride's killer -- it really has nothing to do with coincidences, as in the connection between the two murders. If you've read my posts, you'd know by now why I raise serious question marks regarding Scwartz's man, and in my opinion they weigh heavier.
Furthermore, I think two murders (with throat-cutting included) within less than an hour and relatively in the same geography, with the movement pattern in consideration, is too much of a coincidence to be disregarded. I don't think the "coincidence" of an ordinary assault by a different man prior to a murder fifteen minutes later is in the same league -- not at all.
So it's not comparable and the latter not a problematic coincidence in the same fashion. The first one (the "double event"), on the other hand, is harder to explain within reason, at least to me. So I don't feel I'm contradicting myself here. There is a huge difference between the two examples.
I don't care if Anderson & Co believed in the double event; I think they were right in their judgement here, thought, but I base my views on my own conclusions, not theirs or anyone elses.
About Francis Coles. Hmmm, hard to say. I think I'd rather exclude her, though. I do believe the Miller's Court murder was the last one, and I also find it unlikely that the Ripper would decrease his MO after the extremes with Eddowes and Miller's Court, even if there are other similarities.
I think I can see where you're getting at this (if you're using Coles to test my views regarding Stride). But the Coles murder occured in 1891 (what had the Ripper been doing in the mean-time, after Miller's Court -- taking a coffee break?). I think we are paddling through very muddy waters here and most details are uncertain. But to me Coles (like Mackenzie)probably was a victim of a copy-cat killer, although I can't prove it -- unless Sadler didn't have anything to do with it, of course. Looking only at the facts, though, there are just as many reasons for including her as excluding here, that is obvious and unavoidable, due to certain similarities in the MO, like the slashing of the throat, made while she was lying on the ground, with the killer striking from the right side or the front. According to P.C. Thompson, who found her and heard the sound of footsteps running away, there are -- just as in the Stride case, but here more clearly and direct -- indications on that the killer was interrupted (although he just as well could have finished his job as Thompson arrived, we can't be sure).
I'm quite tempted to include Annie Millwood and Martha Tabram, though, among the Ripper's canonical victims -- as his early attempts. I certainly feel, at least, that there are strong similarities between them in the MO and both occured before the more "creative" slashing of Polly Nichols and the others. Regarding Ada Wilson, that also have been discussed (not by you but by others), the motive appearently was robbery, so I'd count her out.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Christian Jaud
Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi,
reading all this "barrier"- arguments, I was wondering how well the city/met - "border" was known to the average citizen of the East End in those days.
The reason I'm asking is because a wide, main street is some form of visible border, a politically drawn line that seperates one side of a street from the other, isn't.
I mean, if JTR was someone who cared about politics, he probably knew. But would a "low class polish jew" or the bootmaker next door or a prostitute have known?
Sorry if the question isn't up to the high standard of arguments here, but I really would like to know.
Christian
|
Andrew Spallek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 126
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Caz,
You'll be surprised at how therapeutic this board is. I'm just finishing off convelescence after surgery myself. Want to compare incisions? Perhaps not a good idea.
R.J.,
The coincidence of "two attacks" on Stride is not difficult for me. The first attack was really quite minor, the type of brawl or domestic disturbance that happened (and still happens) all the time. It is almost insignificant, assuming that assailant was not the murderer. Murder, on the other hand, was relatively rare (remember, no murders in Whitechapel in all of 1887). Two murders so close together at so close in time is rather more troubling in my judgment. But it is a judgment call.
Christian,
That's a good point and I've wondered it myself. Today the difference between City territory and the London boroughs is quite noticeable. The police wear diffferent uniforms as well. Was this the case in 1888? I don't know. But it seems to me that citizens were more politically aware back then. Remember the juror who protested that he was in the wrong coroner's court and even mentioned his own coroner's name? How many people today know the names of their coroners?
Andy
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
Hi, Andrew and all
To me, anyway, the relevance of the domestic attack is that it shows that Whitechapel was a violent place, and so that two attacks on the same night might not be such a coincidence.
A question about those 1887 murder figures, if anybody knows offhand. Are these census figures which apply only to residents of Whitechapel and therefore don't accurately reflect actual crime statistics? I seem to remember a discussion about this on the old boards.
Cheers,
Dave |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:14 pm: | |
Proof! Poof!
You don't GET proof in the Whitechapel murders, Wolf. All you get are opportunities. You need to develop a method appropriate to the circumstances, not seek to close yourself off every time you find something you can't proove.
Saddam |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 6:55 pm: | |
Hi everybody and hey there Glenn,
First I have some remarks and elaborations for you, Glenn. It's a long one, so sit back and hold on tight.
More than once you've stated among other things that you find it too much of a coincidence that both Stride's body and that of Eddowes was still warm when found. I don't think this really tells us anything. All the bodies of the murdered women in the East End - also that of Francis Coles - were found very shortly after they were killed, except for Tabram, Chapman and Kelly. I think that any body in or near a street would have been discovered very shortly after they died, because it was a densely populated erea with constables and other people being out on the East End streets at all times of the night. I don't think this feature points more in Jack the Ripper's direction than in any other.
By the way, I'm not saying that the time and direction patterns are illogical, although I have some trouble with the direction pattern. I don't really see a direct link between the direction Jack took from Mitre Square to Goulston Street (back to the epi-centre of the murders) and the direction the killer took from Dutfield's Yard to Mitre Square. But I do see that both locations were roughly the same distance from the epi-centre and both situated south of it, so if that's what you wanted to say all along about the direction pattern, I agree with you and see your point.
Then, what I am about to say is merely a thing to consider than to really try to persuade you or anybody to think that Schwartz's man was Stride's killer, because it's more speculation than fact.
I know you think Schwartz's statement is 'totally overrated', 'worth nothing' and 'given far too much weight in the investigation', however, I don't think it can be discarded quite so easily as you seem to do. I expect that quarrels and brawls like the one Schwartz witnessed were quite common for people in those days in that part of London, but that doesn't mean that this one therefore or because of another view on Stride's case had to be such common quarrel.
The thing that bothered me since I got acquainted with the case is the fact that the broad shouldered man didn't seem to need much time to get infuriated and aggresive, in fact, it even seems that this man already was angry with Stride before he stopped and spoke to her. What also bothers me is that Stride screamed 3 times, but not very loudly. These 2 things could be explained by introducing Michael Kidney to this incident. He seems to have been a jealous man (he is said to have padlocked Stride into their room, so she couldn't get out when he didn't want her to) with agressive moods.
This fits the Schwartz incident. The broad shouldered man seems to have been infuriated immediately after encountering Stride, he was agressive towards her and, moreover, Stride didn't scream very loudly, because she feared Michael Kidney and didn't want any other people to get involved or risk a heavy beating.
If we assume that Kidney indeed was her killer, it's also quite possible that he didn't intend to kill her when he found her. In that case, why would he want to flee the scene when seen by Schwartz if he had no intention of killing her? He was hurt by Stride when she left him and he thought he had the right to punish her for that or let her know who was the boss.
The Lipski-exclamation supports the suggestion that the broad shouldered man didn't leave the scene immediately after Schwartz took to his heels. The most likely explanation for this exclamation is that it was called out to warn Schwartz (and the 'pipe man') off. So, apparently the broad shouldered man didn't want any bystanders for the business he had with Stride. Would it be logical to leave the scene right after warning off possible bystanders? I don't think so. With this I'm not saying that this man was the killer, I merely say that he wanted to finish whatever business he had with Stride without any bystanders.
However, if we assume this man to be Kidney, who didn't at first have the intention of killing Stride, it's quite imaginable that he directed Stride to the shadows of Dutfield's Yard where he could talk to her and even punish her without being bothered by other people. It's also quite possible that at one point she told him something that infuriated him so much that he took out his knife and killed her. Maybe that thing was that it was really over between them this time and maybe that thing was that she had a new lover. Maybe he then thought: 'if I can't have you, no one can'.
Again, I’m not saying that Kidney was Stride’s killer, but if he were, it would certainly explain why Elizabeth Stride didn’t scream very loudly and why she would have gone with him into Dutfield’s Yard without resistance and without trying to draw any further attention. The Lipsi-exclamation tells us that the broad shouldered man didn’t want any bystanders and this means that he wanted to finish whatever business he had with Elizabeth Stride.
And now for something completely different, a man with a watch in his hand… 
In one of my earlier posts I drew up a timetable for the last 15 minutes before she was found dead:
ca. 12:45 am.: Schwartz sees 'Broad Shoulders' pull and push Stride about.
ca. 12:47 am.: Mrs. Mortimer goes outside.
ca. 12:48-12:57 am.: Leon Goldstein passes through Berner Street with shiny, black bag. He was seen by Mrs. Mortimer and he later went to the Leman Street Police Station to report that he had been the man seen. This official statement corroborates Mrs. Mortimer's newpaper statements about her time after 12:47 am.
ca. 12:57 am.: Mrs. Mortimer goes back inside.
ca. 1:00 am.: Mrs. Mortimer hears Diemschutz drive by and seconds later he discovers Stride’s body.
Some additions to this table are:
ca. 1:01 am.: Edward Spooner arrives at the scene and sees that blood is still flowing from the throat.
ca. 1:06 am.: constable Henry Lamb arrives at the scene and he states at the inquest that if blood was still flowing from the wound, which he hardly liked to say, then it must have been a very small quantity.
ca. 1:13 am.: Edward Johnston, assistant to Dr. Blackwell, arrives and sees that the wound appears to have stopped bleeding.
If we assume this timetable to be quite accurate, it offers 2 possibilities for the murder: after Schwartz left the area & before Mortimer went outside, and after Mortimer went back inside & before Diemschutz showed up. The first possibility puts the deadly attack on Stride not much later than about 12:48 am. According to a number of us the second possibility involves Jack the Ripper being interrupted and so this puts the attack at only seconds to 1:00 am. because her killer only inflicted a throat wound.
I think it’s quite fair to say that the blood stopped flowing from the wound no earlier than about 1:02 am. and no later than about 1:12 am.. If Stride was killed before Mrs. Mortimer’s doorstep vigil, the throat wound kept bleeding at least for about 14 minutes and at the most for about 24 minutes. If she was killed only seconds to 1:00 am. this means that the wound kept bleeding for at least 2 minutes and at the most for about 12 minutes.
So, if there’s a medical expert out there who can determine the approximate ‘bleeding time’ we can for once and for all discard one of the 2 possibilities. Less than 10 minutes would mean Jack and no less than 15 minutes would mean the broad shouldered man. I hope it’s that simple, but as I haven’t read anything anywhere about such a suggestion I take into account that what I suggest here has been looked into and has led nowhere….
All the best,
Frank
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
