|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 5:07 pm: | 
|
Hi Richard,
There is a difference between fact and hearsay.
Where does it say Polly "ran for her life"?
Where is it stated for a fact that Mary Kelly said "Alright love,dont pull me along"?
The landing of George"s yard was used to doss by people such as Martha Tabram.The ripper might well have known he could find an "unfortunate" on the landing-----just like he probably would have known about the uses of the yard in Hanbury Street
and that he could almost certainly find his prey there too.
But one things for sure-noone can be sure they saw him---unless it was the man seen by Sgt White in Mitre Square-and nobody seems to be sure they heard anything.
I am not being provocative here but quite honestly the only creature who seems to me to have known something was wrong was Diddles---its typical of cats who seem to hear sounds we cant hear to have woken his or her owner up at the moment a cry was heard.At least s/he tried to alert her owner to the horror underneath but s/he wasnt paid much attention to.
And I think Diddles alert is proof that the murder took place at about 4am.
To me the ripper"s silent movements are part of the mystery.
Natalie
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 306
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Natalie is right. One of the outstanding featurres of the case is how JTR committed the murders within feet of sleeping people who had their windows open and yet heard nothing.
It's this absence of sound that makes me wonder how he subdued them--so fast and surely.
Mags
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3053
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Richard,
"In the case of Nichols, there are various reports that support a theory that she was originally attacked [ Mayby Brady street] and ran for her life until fatally put down in Bucks Row.
In the Case of Chapman, there was a report of what could be described as a violent noise in Number 29, as witnessed."
Yes, but if you bothered to read what I said, I specifically pointed out that no one SAW him!!!!!
Yes, there was a slight noise in the Hanbury yard, but it is STILL not in the same league as the perpetrator standing in full view of people, addressing on-lookers on the other side of the street!!!! You don't have that element in the Ripper murders!
No one saw the actual attack in the other murders.
Do you understand the difference?
The Ripper murders were perpetrated with a high risk factor to the borders of the impossible, but they were NOT clumsy!
How the killer MAY HAVE acted in the other murders can be debated (and half of what you are suggesting is fiction and pure speculation anyway), but NO ONE witnessed the actual attacks, with their own eyes, noise or no noise! This is a fact!
I don't believe the Ripper would perform or finish an attack if he was exposed in full view.
This is, as I said, not a credible behaviour from a killer who had eluded the police and disappeared without a trace.
Mr. Broad Shoulders was NOT Jack the Ripper.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3054
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
"In the case of Nichols, there are various reports that support a theory that she was originally attacked [ Mayby Brady street] and ran for her life until fatally put down in Bucks Row."
No, Richard, this is not supported at all. He may have approached her before Buck's Row, but there is really nothing that supports the theory that she was attacked in Brady Street and "ran for her life".
This is originating from one witness testimony, hearing a woman running and screaming for help -- a testimony that is not supported by others and which has by several researchers been classified as not credible.
Once again, you can't accept statements that even by the police at the time were considered questionable, as facts!
You must learn to apply source evaluation, Richard, and not believe anything you read. Or else it just results in a careless use of sources.
No offense.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 4:01 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
You believe that Broad shoulders was not 'Jack' that is you point of view., all i was suggesting albeit speculating that if one takes reports as honest recollections from witnesses, then we have the scenerio that our 'Jack' was nothing more than a grab and kill maniac, that was not in the least bit concerned about being seen.
In this case of mystery one has to decide what reports are true and what are misleading, unfortunetly none of us can be sure which is which.
one point however is clear the person who manhandled Stride , was almost certain not the same person seen with Eddowes in church passage, that could well prove your theory correct, however we cannot be certain that after Lawande and company passed the man left Eddowes, and then the killer moved in. which could have happened in the case of Tabram, Chapman, Kelly.
In the case of stride she was in the company of a man for most of the time she was in Berner street, and was attacked when she was alone.
Is it not possible that Broad shoulders approached her because of this pattern.
Regards Richard. |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 223
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
This is really a follow on from the last few posts, but I've been tossing and turning over this all night..... please someone what's going on........
I was rereading the Swartz testimony again for this wretched reconstruction. Something really disturbed me in it.
Swartz 'saw a man stop and speak to a woman who was standing in the gateway.'
All well and good. They must have been standing on the far side of the gateway for Swartz to have seen them, unless he could see round corners, as he was walking along the road. No problem so far.
Then.....
Swartz says the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but that 'he turned her round' and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times but not very loudly.
Now maybe I'm going crackers, but if someone is talking with someone they are usually at least half facing each other. Why did Mr BS turn Liz around before throwing her down to the ground?
As far as I recall the bruises were on the front of her shoulders, which means she was pushed from the front. If he turned her round, she would have had her back to him when she was thrown down. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
If he had to turn her around, could that mean that she was actually turning to go back into the yard?
He was trying to pull her into the street, if she didn't want to go, her natural reaction would have been to turn away from him and either go into the yard or walk away from him, in the other direction.
He turned her around so that she was facing the street again and when she still resisted, he pushed her down on the ground in anger.
What do you guys think?
It's something I'd never noticed before.
All the best
Jane
xxxxx
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3058
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
MOVED FROM PHIL HILL'S BACK TO BASICS (III) TABRAM THREAD!
Hi Adam,
I see that we begin to agree a bit more regarding the importance of the press -- always something. 
"But there is perfectly good reason for accepting Stride as a Ripper victim. And the arguments used to discount her are largely circumstantial. She has the same characteristics of age, cut throat, location of the body, time of the killing, etc. And we know the killer was interrupted atleast once, and possibly even twice."
There are good reasons for accepting her, yes, but I think the reasons for dismissing her are greater.
I have already explained the points about "same characteristics of age, cut throat, location of the body, time of the killing, etc." several times, and I more or less discount them as any evidence of the Ripper being at work.
The reasons for why a prostitute could be assaulted and killed are numerous and somewhat goes with the territory -- it is a dangerous occupation; I am in fact rather surprised it didn't happen more often in East End than it actually did. Throat cut and time of night -- means nothing; the throat cut was not the same and possibly not done with the same knife as Eddowes (although that is uncertain), throat-cutting was a very common way of killing people in East End at the time, also in domestic crimes (the same night we also had a throat-cut assault of a housewife in Westminster), and several of the other throat cut murders in the area proves this (unless we want to attribute them all to the Ripper).
No, that is wrong -- we do NOT know that the killer was interrupted, Adam. That is only assumed. And I don't think he was, at least not by Diemschutz.
I can possibly believe Mr Broad Shoulders was her killer, but he was not Jack the Ripper. If this man was her killer, this doesen't add up with the murderer being interrupted -- this assault witnessed by Schwartz occurred too early for the killer to be interrupted by Schwartz, and if a second man approached her after this assault and killer her (and then was interrupted by Diemschutz), he would in my belief have been noticed by people like Mrs Mortimer. It is most likely that no one entered Berner Street between the Schwartz incident and Diemscutz's arrival.
So Stride's killer was in my view not at all interrupted by Diemschutz. And since I can't with all the will in the world accept the clumsy and very extrovert conduct of Broad Shoulders as the behaviour of the elusive Jack the Ripper, I'd say it is not -- in my personal opinion -- very likely that she was a victim of the Ripper, but that the close connection with the Eddowes murder in fact was a sheer coincidence.
"You'll find that even the other 3 victims haven't gone without doubt being thrown on them over the years as well."
As far as I know, no one has seriously questioned the inclusions of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and I fail to see why they should.
"Glenn, you yourself in your Swedish crime history book refer to a possible link between the killings of Kjersti Jonsson and Dagmar Kofoed. Now when you compare their 2 cases, and then look at Stride and the other Ripper victims, then it is clearly much more likely that Stride was a Ripper victim. She was killed right in the middle of the Ripper murders, Jonsson and Kofoed were 5 years apart. She was the same age as the other victims, Jonsson and Kofoed had 45 years between them. I am not trying to jump off topic here, but I do believe if you feel there could be a link between those 2, and not Stride and the other Ripper victims, you really need to re-think your beliefs. Otherwise, it is totally backwards."
I really don't think this is the place for it, but your assumptions are all wrong, not least regarding the age thing. It is not uncommon for a serial killer to disregard the victim's age. We have many examples of where serial killers kills people of quite different age groups and this is widely recorded.
As far as those two murders (just in short):
1) the two victims -- one woman of 20 in 1908 and one of 65 in 1903 -- had exactly the same MO and signature, and quite an usual one -- not to mention in Scandinavia, in small towns or on the countryside, where no known serial murders had been known prior to this. For the murders he was sent to prison for in the end, he had used the exactly same MO as in these two murders. The fact that they happened in five years apart, means nothing -- the other murders he was known to commit, had been performed in the time period between those two.
2) The suspect -- who travelled around all over Denmark and Sweden -- happened to be (in spite of his vagrant way of life) at those exact locations at exactly the same times as the murders occurred, which is documented proof and also admitted by himself. His activities span from 1900 to 1908 -- of those we know of, that is -- and different parts of Scandinavia.
In Stride's case you don't find any of those similarities with the other murders.
The MO in Stride's case has very little to do with the Ripper, unless you totally want to buy the Diemschutz interruption theory (which I don't). Her throat was cut, but not to the same extent and her body position was not the same and she had no further mutilations.
The fact that a prostitute was murdered by such a common murder method (throat cut) -- also used in domestic crimes -- is not at all spectacular, I would say the opposite.
What stands out is the coincidence with the Ripper murder of Eddowes 45 minutes later. Besides that, there is no link to the Ripper, as far as I am concerned.
Regardless of which, we will never know for sure, and we can debate this til the end of time, Adam. You are 100% set in your belief -- I am not. In my personal opinion I see the trademarks of a domestic or client-related assault, and although I can't totally rule her out as a Ripper victim, I'd say her inclusion is merely based on coincidences, assumptions and personal wishes rather than real facts supporting it. But that is just what I believe.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 02, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff tonna
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Maria you ask a very good question which i think has been overlooked by most in this thread. How did the killer preform these murders so qieutly?? And the most intriging question of all, How did he manage to get the women to lay down?? I dont wish to be crude but a Prostitute of the time was hardly likely to lay down for her client in the dirt and grime of the city streets. More likely a prostitute would lean against something allowing the client for want of a better word access from behind. This was the accepted position as the lady would not soil her clothes by lying down.The other point i would like to make is that in all of the accepted murders of the Whitechapel Murderer the victim was lying down when the throat was cut. I will accept that 2 seperate killers may have killed 2 different women by cutting there throats on the same night, but when you add the fact that these 2 women where laying down when the throat was cut, i cannot see any doubt that the murders where by the same perpitrator. The laying down of the victim before slitting the throat has to be one of the key points to this whole case. How did he do it? As explained before the victims would not have laid down volunterily.The attacks where sudden,this we can be sure of,how else can you explain the pills in Strides hand?? Mark Daniel raises a thoroughly thought provoking theory in his article in the book The Mammoth Book of Jack The Ripper.As the women would be bent over leaning against a fence in such a position, it would render them powerless to defend themselves.I qoute... Then the killer would grasp her chin in his left hand and incapacitate her with his right.This ties in with the fact that all four of the outside victims where found close to walls or fences.
In the case of chapman, " there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest,"in that of Stride " over both shoulders and under the collar bone .. a bluish discolouration which i have watched and have seen on two seperate occasions since.." said Phillips. phillips was present at the examination of Eddowes. It is my belief that these indicate the killer's method. Firm pressure on the twin pressure points behind the collar bone, cutting off the corotid bloodflow, will induce unconsciousness within seconds. end qoute.
This would explain how the killer was able to 1) get his victims to lay down and 2) would have made no noise in the process. Doesnt this theory fascinate?? To know about these pressure points is a very high skill not known to many people at all. It seems very plausible dont you think? Id love to hear your opinions. |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Hello all,
Firstly I would like to state that I believe Stride was a Ripper victim.
I also believe that in this instance Jack's swift,silent and efficient method of "Dispatch" was considerably hindered and slowed down by a safety precaution taken by Stride.
We know that Stride was found with scarf wrapped tightly around her throat and there has been speculation that the Ripper used this to strangle her before using the knife.
I believe that Stride,herself had wrapped the scarf tightly around her neck hoping it would provide her with some sort of protection,should she encounter the Ripper.
In fact I'll bet a lot of other prostitutes did the same at the hight of the scare.
So maybe the Ripper had difficulty trying to cut Stride's throat because very little of it was actually exposed.
This could provide an explanation as to why the knife wound was smaller and less clean in charachter.
Kane |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3059
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
The medical stuff is not my expertise, but I think the thoughts are interesting and worth investigating.
It has always been my belief, that the victims' were taken by surprise while getting ready for the sexual act, and that they in some way at this instance were suffocated and passed out before they were put on their backs against the ground.
The point about the fences and gates, in connection with the sexual act is a good one and plausible, although I believe they just as well could have stood facing a wall -- can't find a particular reason for why they only would have chosen fences.
As far as Stride is concerned, I am not sure what this mean. Stride was apparently assaulted on the pavement, and she and the man doesen't seem to have been involved in sexual activity at this point. I think Stride got her bruises from when the man threw her down on the pavement, so that could be slightly misleading, since we know she was assaulted, probably grabbed and thrown to the ground.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 308
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Jeff- I think he "got" them to lie down by strangling them!
Interesting point about the scarves, Kane. I don't hink I've ever heard that one before.
Mags
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 310
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
I wanted to add, Kane, that the knife Jack used would have had no difficulty cutting through a scarf no matter how tightly wrapped.
Mags
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Glenn you say:
"Throat cut and time of night -- means nothing"
What can someone who firmly believes Stride to be a Ripper victim say to this? No actually i means quite a bit. Sure murders happened in the East End but how many? And now many during this period were of prostitutes left dead on the street with their throats cut? You also say:
"Mr. Broad Shoulders was NOT Jack the Ripper."
I have to laugh when I read this. It’s just a totally irresponsible thing to say. Even I who am convinced that a) broad shoulders killed Stride and b) whoever killed Stride was JTR --- would never make a blanket statement that Stride was a Ripper victim. To categorically state that Mr. BS was not JTR shows a complete lack of flexibility in your reasoning on this issue.
After months of reading this site I have come to a conclusion…I really think the Ripper camp can be broken into 2 groups. One sees a brute that did what he did (for the most part) quickly and efficiently but who could have an in fact should have been caught but got lucky. A look over a fence, a person departing for work, a couple entering a square, any of these events COULD have happened but through no special powers of the Ripper, just did not transpire. For instance if Cadosh had looked over the fence and started yelling it is my belief we would not have heard of Jack The Ripper today. Why didn't he look over the fence? Nothing to do with a sly Ripper...he just didn't. The fact is the history of serial killers is full of cases where killers in fact should have been caught much earlier but by virtue of pure luck or bad detective work were able to continue killing for long periods of time. Therefore group one believes JTR to be coarse low class brute who just happened to get away. He may have been cunning or possessed some street smarts but ultimately chance was simply on his side.
Then we have group 2 that on the surface apply reason and logic to the case...but who in reality, somewhere deep down in the depths of their psyche can't stop thinking of the Ripper as some phantom with mystical powers who was in complete control of his faculties and his environment at the time of the killings. I understand that there are in fact reasons to look at the Stride murder more closely as there are differences between this and the other accepted Ripper murders. And I fully acknowledge that there is an outside chance that poor Stride was killed by Kidney. Nonetheless the similarities surrounding her death to other Ripper victims greatly outweigh the differences. I have to put those who fail accept that the Ripper could have been seen assaulting a victim and later interrupted into the second camp...those that deep down believe not in Jack the man but in Jack The Phantom.
BTW Glenn if you are not a lawyer you should be…you have a real knack for defending your arguments (arguments I usually disagree with) and like I have said before I always enjoy reading your posts (even if just to see you steamroll those who hold opposing views in your responses)…so please don’t take anything I say regarding my believe in Stride as a JTR victim in a bad way. I just think in the area of Tabram and Stride you and many other here can’t see the forest for the trees. Of course its possible I’m not seeing the trees for the forest
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3061
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Haha. Don't worry, "extendedping" (God, what a name to spell...), I have come a long way from taking things personally on these Boards.
However, saying that I "steamroll those who hold opposing views in my responses" is hardly fair (and if I do it is not for their opinions); if you look at my posts, you see that I actually several times over and over states that none of us will probably never really know the answer of anything in this case, and we never will, no matter how long we argue about an issue.
I would be a fool to possess prefabricated assumptions in a 116 year old case. That is also why I -- in contrast to many others -- DON'T have a pet suspect.
And just because I only see three real canonical victims, doesen't mean I totally close the door on the others -- as I said in one post; heck, he could have killed them all. We can't know that for sure.
But then my nose and my gut feeling tells me certain things when I look at the evidence and the over-all picture. It doesen't prove anything, but it is enough to raise certain issues and questions -- and personal opinions.
It is usually the so called inclusionists (people who wants to attribute as many victims to the Ripper as possible), who are very much set in their minds and can't see other alternative -- which has been proven time and time again, no matter which arguments you produce.
That being said, I am only sure of ONE thing in the Ripper case, and that is that Mr Broad Shoulders was NOT Jack the Ripper.
The point regarding Cadosh is useless; it comes nowhere near the situation in Berner Street.
In my mind the Ripper is certainly not someone who in full view deliberately assaults a woman in front of two witnesses and -- even worse -- shouts something to one of them across the street.
The Ripper took a lot of unnecessary risks, but he was not stupid, and certainly not that kind of exhibitionist. This is not the conduct of a serial killer who have managed to elude the police and disappear from the murder sites unseen. Regardless of the incident mentioned by Cadosh (this incident could indeed have turned out to be a serious accident on the killer's part, but my belief is that he probably didn't know Cadosh was there anyway -- Mr Broad Shoulders, on the other hand, didn't seem to care about anything whatsoever).
This is the ONLY point where I allow myself not to be flexible, because I just simply can't see it. But don't use that in order to turn me into someone who is mind-set on things in general (I know you didn't say that, but I can sense it).
As for your two "camps", I somewhat get a feeling that you want to drop me in the second one -- if so, that is completely incorrect; if it now is possible to label anyone into categories at all, I actually belong to the first one. But who knows, maybe I am misinterpreting you...
"Sure murders happened in the East End but how many? And now many during this period were of prostitutes left dead on the street with their throats cut?"
Not many, but still a fair amount, if you look at the whole number of bodies with their throats slashed from 1888 - 1891. If we then add the number of mutilated bodies like the two torsos (not to mention the torso murder perpetrated in Whitechapel by Henry Wainwright before the Ripper murders) and the attacks on Ada Wilson and Emma Smith, the list becomes very long, throat cuts or not (although I know that some people wants to attribute almost all of these to the Ripper). Throat cutting was a common way of killing someone at this time, and is in itself not especially illustrating. It is also possible that the murderer tried to make it look like a Ripper killing, but this is of course speculations.
Besides this, the similarities are few, to say the least, and the only interesting thing is the connection with the Eddowes murder 45 minutes later. But stranger coincidences have happened, and I am certainly not the only one who holds this view.
"I just think in the area of Tabram and Stride you and many other here can’t see the forest for the trees. Of course its possible I’m not seeing the trees for the forest"
You said it, not me.
Hope you enjoyed the show, extendedping.
(And good Lord... no, I am NOT a lawyer...)
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Yes Glenn I said it not you...because unlike you who state categorically "there is no chance a man seen attacking a prostitute within minutes of her being found dead on the street with her throat slit being the same man who had killed other prostitutes during this period in a similar fashion"...unlike you I don't deal in absolutes in this case. Evidently you do. I suppose if you could be transported in time back to London 1988 and have the chance to question Mr. broad shoulders on Strides murder, you would not even ask him to show his whereabouts for the earlier murders or for Eddows later that night...why even ask...its sooo obvious he wasn't JTR.
As for the two camps I have to put you in the second one by virtue of your inability to see that the Ripper COULD have acted exactly as Mr. broad shoulders did in Berner Street. Don't feel bad...some of the smartest and most interesting posters on this site are in this camp. camp 2 is what makes this site entertaining. But camp 2 deep down in can't get the vision of a phantom Ripper out of there psyche. Of course I don’t expect anybody in this camp to agree with me or even to acknowledge their membership...that’s why I said they feel this way DEEP DOWN. On the surface camp 2 thinks they are being perfectly logical. Stating categorically that the Ripper could not have attacked a victim (which really may have been an attempt to subdue so as not to be exposed)in front of a witness or have yelled something is just deep down beleiving in a phantom not in a demented psycho.
How much do we know about what transpired with Stride and Mr. broad shoulders before he was seen assaulting her?
Perhaps he tried to schmooze her but she had a funny feeling and tried to escape...only then did he get rough. In other words the situation was getting out of control for Jack and he had to act aggressively, witness or not. Was broad shoulders really attracting attention to himself or just trying to make the best of a situation he had not anticipated? Does yelling "lipski" or whatever it was he yelled really mean much? Perhaps he was just saying get the hell out of here ...enough to make many including Schwartz do just that. Why didn't she yell louder? perhaps he said scream and i'll kill you...killers who end up murdering their victims anyway often say things like that and even thought the victim had nothing to lose by screaming they are to terrified to do so. So here we have not an out of control Ripper but a Ripper making the best of a bad situation. Whoever killed Stride got away with it so whatever actions he took ultimately were the right ones.
Glenn I know you have studied crime so you know things don't fit into neat little categories...like a killer who slits throats can’t just stab another time, or a killer who was not seen or heard can't be seen or heard another time. Why you can't even entertain the thought of broad shoulders being Jack is truely beyond me. Discounting the obvious and believing in and relying on coincidences as opposed to following the logical chain of events…may make for interesting detective novels but is in realty bad detective work. Nobody knows the exact time frame or chain of events that occurred on Berner Street that night. All we know is the following...at a time when killings were rare and killings of prostitutes on the street with there throats slashed were unheard of (apart for those occurring within the immediate time frame and already attributed to the serial killer), we suddenly have 2 killings on the same night within a time frame and a distance that fits perfectly into the scenario of an interrupted and unfulfilled jack continuing on in order to get his jollies. Is it possible I am dead wrong? Yes I said it not you. Is it probable? I don’t think so.
BTW I apologize for saying you steamroll those holding opposing views, I have reread some of your posts and you vigorously defend you viewpoints so I guess that was a bad choice of words. Ok off to bed for me have not slept in over 24 hours
|
Jeff Tonna
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
Maria i dont think he got them to lie down by strangling them.There are a few facts that point to a very swift subdueing of the victims.If these women where strangled then there would be signs of this on the body ie heavy bruising around the neck.As far as i can see from reading the autopsy reports none of the victims showed signs of strangulation, as testified by the Coroner at the time.They exhibited bruising around the chest and collar, not around the neck. Also if Stride was strangled before her throat was cut, don't you think its strange she would keep hold of her pills rather than fight back? Strangulation would take at least 3 min, in that time the victim could inflict some injury's to the murderer, actualy you would expect some fighting back to have occured. So why was there no eveidence on the victims hands that there had been a struggle? in fact there where no signs of any struggle by any victim at all.And also strangling a person may not be as quite as you would expect,no one heard any sound except a thud.All of these facts point to a very quick method of subduing the victim, and strangulation is not quick.I am not saying Mark Daniel's theory is correct but it is highly plausible.The killer used something to subdue his victims,very quickly.
Because of this fact i do believe Stride to be a victim of the Ripper. to lie the victim down before cutting the throat is highly unusual.If the object is to kill by cutting the throat then it would be far easier and faster to grab the victim from behind, one hand on the mouth as the throat is slashed from behind.With the body dropped the murderer only has to walk away from the scene with almost no blood on himself.So ask yourselves this question if your intention was to just kill a person would you go to the trouble of rendering them unconcious first then laying them down before slitting there throat? Just sounds wrong to me? |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Forgive me if anyone has already raised this point.
But
We know that Liz Stride, when found, was holding a packet of cachous in her hand. My point is, are we to believe that Liz hung on to this packet of cachous during the attack as witnessed by Shwartz.
If Shwartz's attacker was her murderer, then Liz would not only have had to hang on to the cachous during the attack, but also it would have been necessary for her to hang on to it while being dragged into the yard and then murdered.
Now it is my opinion, that if Liz was holding a packet of cachous, during the attack as described above, then she would have dropped it. Surely the packet would fall from her hand as she defended herself from the initial assault.
Wouldn't it?
Of course we'll never really know.
It is possible that Liz was not holding the cachous during the Shwartz attack
One alternative, is that Liz was not murdered by Shwartz's attacker, but after the attack, she dusted herself down, was approached by another client, willingly went into the yard with him, got out her packet of cachous, and then before she could put the packet away, was murdered, another victim of JTR.
The fact that the cachous was found in her hand leads me to think that Liz was killed very quickly, and completely at ease with her eventual murderer.
There are flaws however in this scenario, would the disressed Liz have taken on another client so soon after being attacked? Would she have been calm enough to take out a packet of cachous, to freshen her breath? I don't know.
There is another alternative for Liz's apparent calmness, i.e. taking out a packet of cachous shortly before her murder, this could be due to the fact that she never was in any distress, and by this I mean that Shwartz never saw that attack on Liz.
The above of course all hinges on the cachous, all on supposition, i.e. would Liz have dropped it during the attack, or against considerable odds have clung on to it during a prolonged assault.
Regards Cludgy
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3092
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
extendedping,
I think you are misinterpreting me quite a lot. You are so set in your own mind, that I must be someone to state things categorally, that you fail to acknowledge that this point is in fact the only one in the whole case that I would dare to make a bet on (and I never gamble).
Now, do I believe that the conduct of Mr. Broad Shoulders is a credible one for the Ripper? Absolutely not. Sure, Mr. Broad shoulders got away with it, but that in itself is NOT a viable proof of that he was the Ripper.
I can only repeat what I have said earlier; it doesen't matter one bit what "Lipski" means, fact remains that he DID assault a woman on an open street and shout to people on the other side, apparently totally unaware of the danger in the situation. This is a very strange conduct for the person who performed the other murders, who -- although taking considerable risks -- never performed his crimes in full view of others. You are free to buy this possibility, but I don't.
I'll tell you what is bad detection work. Bad detection work is to assume that every murder that comes along belong to a series, just because you expect it to be just that -- that is to take the easy way out.
Your only assessement for why Mr Broad Shoulders (if he was her killer) must be Jack the Ripper, is the throat cut (which isn't that similar to JtR's anyway) and the connection with the Eddowes murder.
Your first mistake is to assume that I only base my conclusions on the behaviour of MR Broad Shoulders (although I believe that point is relevant enough).
Looking at the facts however, there are several things -- besides the rowdy and sloppy, not to mention stupid, conduct of Mr Broad Shoulders -- that don't add up with the notion that Stride was a JtR victim.
Firstly, if Mr Broad Shoulders was Jack the Ripper, why didn't he mutilate her like the others? Stride was killed after the incident seen by Schwartz and there would have sufficient time for Mr Broad Shoulders to mutilate her without being disturbed. There was no one to disturb him until Diemschutz arrived and this was quite some time later. Therefore Stride must have been killed just after Schwartz had left the scene, and therefore it is fair to assume that Mr Broad Shoukders killed her as soon as he was alone with her, which would have been some seconds later, and then split directly after. After this, no one was seen on Berner Street or in the yard according to several witnesses.
If we accept Mr Broad Shoulders as her killer -- which I prefer to do -- then the interruption scenario must be scrapped, because he would have plenty of time to do the mutilations without being disturbed by anyone. Plus the fact that no one was seen either in the yard or on the street.
Secondly, if she was killed by another man, who approached her after the Mr BS assault, and who got disturbed by Diemschutz, then we have to face a lot of problems in order to make this fit into the witness statement by Mrs Mortimer, for example, who saw or heard neither Stride or a second man on Berner Street before Diemschutz arrived. It all becomes a rather incredible and awkward puzzle.
From the facts we have, everything seems to point at the Mr BS assault on Stride was the foreplay to the actual murder, who then killed her and left directly after. And in that case, there would have been sufficient time for him to do the throat cut in a more thorough "JtR manner", as well performing mutilations. But he didn't.
Adding to this, his very sloppy, amateurish and noisy behaviour, I'd say Mr Broad Shoulders was not Jack the Ripper and that Stride was nmeant to be killed, not mutilated.
As for your strange belief that throat cuts on prostitutes and on women in general were uncommon, I would urge you to read up a bit more. In 1888 we have several cases on knife attacks, and we even have other mutilation murders performed by presumably another person than the Ripper, like the two torso murders.
As for coincidences, the same night on the double event -- the same night! -- we have a throat cut incident on a woman in Westminster.
You on the other hand seems obsessed with the thought -- and very much set in your own mind -- that those coincidences never happen.
Stranger coincidences have happened than the Berner Street--Mitre Square murders, and if we then add the factual circumstances to it, along with the behaviour of Mr Broad Shoulder, I'd say it's rather unlikely that Stride was a Ripper victim. As I see it, everything points at a domestic-, client- or gang-related crime, with no proven obvious connection to the Ripper (unless her throat was cut in order to make it look like the Ripper had been at large).
I can't prove it, but that is what the facts tell me. Or else they just don't add up.
And finally,
No, I do certainly not believe that the Ripper was a phantom or supernatural monster of any kind. I believe he was a more or less disturbed and rather uninteresting nobody, possibly with paranoid schizofrenic disorder, but that has very little to do with the conduct of Mr Broad Shoulders. You are doing the ultimate mistake, like many others, to believe that those types of perpetrators are raving lunatics unable to control themselves.
*BEEP* -- wrong.
They may take unnecessary risks but they can be quite capable of handling certain situations with quite coolness and rationality. They have also been proven -- although clearly irrational and disorganized -- to be quite cunning and hard to catch. Does the name Hadden Clark ring a bell?
What Mr Broad Shoulder display is the behaviour of an amateur and a simple aggressive, rather careless drunk. Unless we totally want to discredit Schwartz's testimony.
After all, prostitutes lead dangerous lives, and they walk alone at night on the streets. It would be rather strange for them not to be approached by murderous or dangerous characters, and especially in East End. The fact that it happened just 45 minutes away from the Eddowes murder is not enough to make her a serial killer victim, considering her occupation.
These are just my personal opinions and my interpretations of the fact, and they could be wrong -- after all, Stride could be a Ripper victim against all odds -- but I believe it is YOU who are mindset in your belief that Mr Broad Shoulders MUST be Jack the Ripper and can't see any alternative solutions, although several facts points in other directions.Bsides this, we can debate this and argue until we become blue in the face. And we will STILL never know the real truth.
Once again, hope you enjoyed the show, and that you did get a good night's sleep.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 09, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Extendedping,
Great post that last one. I am in 100% agreement. Also I am in camp 1. I will respond more fully later.
Rob H |
Dave
Police Constable
Username: Davem
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 2:19 am: |
|
Glenn, I see we come from the same point of view or the new label(Camp).
I ask myself what would be everyone opion if the only murder that night was Stride. Then look at the details of the deed and compare them to the past and future victims. I just have trouble accepting her as a Ripper victim. The facts do not add up.
Dave(dlmaugie)
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Hi all: The point was raised about the fact that Liz was laid down before the throat was cut.
This is a very good point that I think shows a definite M.O. link. An ordinary slasher attack would probably attack from behind, but with the woman upright or bent over, not lying down.
Other links to the Eddowes murder;
Both women had the head facing hard left and mud stained,and both had scarves on that were slashed by the knife used. (Catharine Eddowes had on "a red scarf, much cut about".)
Did the man with the red scarf seen with Eddowes loan her his, like in the Hutchinson scenario? Could this be part of his M.O, if they did not have a scarf, then he would lend them one to use later to strangle them enough to lay them down?
And to Cludgy: What if Liz's customer was ALREADY waiting in the yard for her, while she got rid of the ruffian (Kidney?) Then when she went to tidy up, he waited in the doorway and surprised her as she reached in for her mints.
Joan
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Extendedping
I'm not camp at all, but I am rather fond of daisy chains
But I had a disscusion with Glen the Swedish man, on just the subject you were expounding above some time ago.
Below is something akin as to how the conversation went
I at the time believed that JTR could well have been the Man as seen by Schwartz, Glen as you know thinks that this is a distinct no no.
He at the time said that the loud and aggresive way in which Schwartz's man behaved was not in line with the Rippers MOD.
I countered by saying how did he know that, he said, that in previous murders JTR Behaved in a stealthy and quite manner, I said that yes that was true, but in the previous murders(before Stride)the victims had offered no resistance.
I went on, could we be seeing in Strides murder how the Ripper would behave(i.e. in a brutal loud aggresive manner) if shown resistance from a victim. No said Mr Andersson. Then how would the Ripper react to resistence I asked. He would probably have run a mile, said Mr Andersson.
Now I At that time believed that Mr Andersson was wrong, and that you can not wholly pidgeonwhole people to that degree.
Of course I now believe that Schwartz's attacker could not have been JTR, for the simple reason, as stated by me in my previous post, that in my opinion Liz Stride could not have hung onto that packet of cachous during the attack as witnessed by Schwartz, and yet when she was found, she was holding in her hand a packet of cachous.
She must have taken out the cachous sometime after the attack as witnessed by Schwartz.
Regards Cludgy |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3102
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Cludgy,
I wouldn't base any argument in any direction on the cachous. why? Because the cachous will always be a mystery, regardless of who killed her, and how. She was still clutching on to them when she died anyway, and that part will always be more or less unexplainable.
It is a good point, though, that it seems unlikely that the packet of cachous would survive in her hand through the whole first attack and then through the actual killing. But it is not impossible.
What if, for example, Mr Broad Shoulders decided to split just after the Schwartz incident, but then -- still in a state of rage -- decided to go back and assault her again and killed her. And that Stride actually may have picked up the packet of cachous after he left the first time, but then was killed some seconds later when he returned, and died with them in her hand.
Just a thought. It is a heck of a lot more possible than she being attacked by a second man in this short frame of time.
All the best
"Glen -- the Swedish man" Andersson,
author
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 487
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Hi Cludgy,
I agree with you that it’s very doubtful that Stride would have hung to the cachous throughout the whole attack if Mr Broad Shoulders killed her. However, I don’t think he dragged her into the yard, in fact, I’m sure of it as there’s no evidence whatsoever of this.
The problems connected to the cachous, and others, might be explained by the following scenario - just as it might open a can of worms.
Kidney somehow heard where to find Stride and did so at the entrance to Dutfield’s Yard. He stops and starts to speak to her and as soon as she reacts he starts getting aggressive. Stride screams but not very loudly as she doesn’t want him to become even more aggressive and wants to prevent a further scene. As he notices there are one or two men around he tries to tell them to mind their own business by yelling at them, after which they both flee.
Stride is somehow able to calm him down a bit after that and persuades him to calmly talk it over in the yard, where she thinks there’s much less chance of a scene being noticed. So they talk and finally Stride tells him that this time it’s really over between them. Feeling good about herself she starts walking away from him, meanwhile taking the cachous out of her pocket.
At that point Kidney is suddenly infuriated once more, but this time he’s not going to let her leave. With his left hand he takes hold of her scarf and pulls her back and to her left side, while he takes a knife out of his pocket with his right. As the attack is so sudden and quick, she doesn’t drop the cachous, but instead grips them more tightly. She falls back while turning to her left with her head just below his left chest, remaining on her feet for a split second. In that split second he cuts her throat and steps back, trying to avoid getting blood on him. She grabs at her throat, getting blood on the palm and back, and falls on her left side with her legs drawn up, her bonnet falling a few inches from her head. He quickly leaves.
This is just a scenario that, although speculative, I find feasible, but it doesn’t mean this has to be what actually happened.
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Restless Spirit
Police Constable
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 11:44 pm: |
|
John
I've wondered if there was an error made with respect to Eddowes stating that she knew who JTR was. Maybe it was Stride, she may have confronted him, a struggle ensued and he slit her throat outright to shut her up and fled the scene in search of his next victim.Maybe far fetched, but not impossible.
Restless Spirit
Restless Spirit
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3103
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Frank,
Quite possible scenario. Absolutely.
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 116
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Restless - I don't think we can play fast and loose with the evidence like that. As far as I am aware the quote has always and only been attributed to Eddowes.
If you can swop things around like that we'd soon solve the case!!
Cheers,
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1729
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
There are a number of quite artistic touches to the killing of Liz Stride which we do not find in other cases connected to the Whitechapel murders.
There are the 'cachous' - little French mints to freshen her breath - a gentle touch.
There are the petals of the flower that was pinned to her breast by her gentleman lover - an even gentler touch.
There are the stalks of fresh grapes laid in the gutter, soaked in the blood of the murdered woman - one trembles at the gentle thought that a pair of lovers shared those grapes a few hours before.
Sudden murder is a brutal affair, so we introduce a few gentle props to ease the human pain and brutality of reality.
With a good deal of reflection, I do see much of this 'gentle' evidence as imagination on the part of various witness, especially witness interviewed by the press.
It has the elements of a good story, but probably nothing to do with the actual killing of Stride. |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 117
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
AP - I think there may be sufficient evidence to allow us to hypothesise (at least) that liz spent part of the evening with an admirer, who may have been a grade or two higher up the social scale than she was - a clerk maybe. the early sightings, the piece of velvet, her care in dressing that night all tend to such a conclusion.
It also provides a potential motive for Kidney to be murderous.
So I think the touches to which you refer are germane and may have much to do with the killing of Stride.
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Yes, you are quite right, Phil.
But I think we both think and say the same thing:
Stride was not a victim of the Whitechapel murderer, otherwise we would not have these gentle touches that speak of love; lost, destroyed and otherwise.
These gentle touches to the killing of Stride are part of the 'noise' that has always disturbed me when attempting to see her as a victim of Jack.
Too many witness for it to be so.
So yes, germane and much to do with the killing of Stride, if we are to accept the killing as a domestic.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4088
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
AP's asked me to post this :
"TIMES" JUNE 6th 1900
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1735
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
My thanks to Robert.
I felt this sad little criminal case wonderfully illustrated the inherent 'domestic' nature of the Stride killing, and at least gives those of us who firmly believe that Stride was not a victim of Jack the Ripper, a valid and plausible scenario in which to develop the true nature of her sudden death.
If Stride had not just happened to have been killed in the middle of the 'reign of terror' then I honestly believe her murder would have been reported as the above.
Just another sad little domestic crime of sudden murder on the streets of Whitechapel. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3107
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Indeed, Ap.
Thanks for posting that, Robert and AP. We have way too little information about those domestic crimes -- especially involving throat cuts -- that were lost in the shadows of the Ripper killings.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
It never ceases to amaze me how desperate so many people are to solve this case. They reach outside the bounds of the evidence to make unjustified explanations. By what power of thought can it be said that Stride's murder was "Just another sad little domestic crime of sudden murder on the streets of Whitechapel?" Except for Dew, the many police detectives who directly examined the crime scenes univocally agreed that JtR killed Stride. Why is the truth so hard to accept that people go through endless gyrations to reject it?
The cachous provide an explanation if questioned correctly, not an unanswerable mystery. My Andersson is completely wrong to say "...the cachous will always be a mystery, regardless of who killed her, and how. She was still clutching on to them when she died anyway, and that part will always be more or less unexplainable." If she's got that packet in her hand when she dies, something must have happened to quiet her down in between the time Schwartz and the pipeman fled the scene and the time she was murdered. To call it unsolvable and give up is to ignore the empirical evidence. So, what's going to happen to calm her down? I can't imagine any way she'd get calmed down and relaxed in that short of a time to think of standing around in the very same place enjoying a cachous unless the whole matter of her being attacked in the first place were to be fundamentally reversed somehow. If another man comes by and chases off the attacker, she's not going to hang around there, she's going to move off, either with him or by herself. What would prevent the attacker from returning? The only plausible answer fits the evidence on another point as well. When she screamed, she screamed three times, but not very loudly. This would indicate she knew her attacker, didn't want to make too big of a scene, and figured she might get the matter worked out with him and back to work there despite having been attacked. Combined with the cachous in her hand at death, we are led to the conclusion that the man who attacked her made up with her as soon as the witnesses left and gave her the cachous himself. He then asked her to accompany him behind the gates, where he pounced on her in the dark and cut her throat.
This is hard by the evidence, folks. |
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
all this points towards a minor street squabble, as Glenn describes. you see it every friday night in most towns after the pubs close, i can imagine this scenario so easily.
i can also imagine the Ripper hearing this as he's walking past Berner st, (because you'd definitely hear this)
this commotion would attract the Ripper's interest, if only for the sake of spying, he then waits to see what happens, notices B.S walking off and then quickly jumps in..
nobody else was seen in Berner st, no because the ripper waited until all eye whitnesses had vanished.
how loud did Stride scream and B.S shout? no idea, but anything more than quiet conversation will be heard from a long way off...especially at night and you can bet your last dollar the noise of this was fairly loud.......
now would this attract the Ripper...definitely! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3109
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Radka,
Did you really read my whole post?
Or did you just fix upon one sentence?
I just gave a possible explanation to the cachous in a post above (that the attacker may have returned), and Frank gave another one.
And your own comes very close to what I myself described or had in mind.
Point is, the mystery lies in the fact that she was killed by surprise, and still held the cachous clenched in her hand and that they weren't dropped while she was killed or when she was laid down. Regardless of how the killing was done, by whom or when, I do find it a bit puzzling that she was still holding on to them, unless some kind of muscle spasm made her clench that package automatically during the killing incident.
How this or any other so called "evidence" proves her to be a victim of the Ripper goes beyond me, though. The cachous proves nothing of the sort regarding that particular question -- then may tell us the most possible way she was killed, but they certainly don't tell us WHO killed her.
And anyone who believes her to be a JtR victim without a shadow of a doubt, have several problems with the other evidence and witness statements to jerk their way around.
Evidence schmevidence, David.
The one who's trying to solve the case here is you -- don't involve me in that vain and useless form of occupation.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 124
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
I don't accept for a moment "quickly jumping in.. ". he would have been far too cautious?
Assuming that he did, are we to take it that he "jumped in" after Nichols finished with a client, or argued with someone? Or Eddowes? or Kelly?
As for Mr radka's post that says everything and nothing, I find it laughable to use in the same post the ideas that:
a)"except for Dew, the many police detectives who directly examined the crime scenes univocally agreed that JtR killed Stride. Why is the truth so hard to accept that people go through endless gyrations to reject it?" This is almost categoric that JtR killed Stride, though note not explicitly so.
and (b) "The only plausible answer fits the evidence on another point as well. When she screamed, she screamed three times, but not very loudly. This would indicate she knew her attacker..." This IS categoric (given the rest of the post) that Stride knew her killer. But this is surely just as much the sheer guesswork, that Mr Radka scoffs at when he writes: "It never ceases to amaze me how desperate so many people are to solve this case. They reach outside the bounds of the evidence to make unjustified explanations."
I DO believe that on the balance of evidence that stride knew her killer, but I DON'T think (on balance) that he was JtR. I DO resent being called desperate and having my arguments and logic dismissed as unjustified by someone who clearly does exactly the same.
"By what power of thought can it be said that Stride's murder was "Just another sad little domestic crime of sudden murder on the streets
of Whitechapel?"
It can be said Mr Radka, on the basis of the logic set out and the evidence evinced in mine and other's posts above and elsewhere. It is, However an approach that requires a mind OPEN to evidence and argument, not one that clings to an inadequate single explanation that assumes all the evidence in "in".
"Except for Dew, the many police detectives who directly examined the crime scenes univocally agreed that JtR killed Stride."
But they were caught up in events, trying to make sense of a situation evolving around them. 100 plus years later, we can sit back a little, and consider the evidence, and as with MJK and Stride, play with the idea that, MAYBE, there ia another explanation. Unlike your approach this is not (for me at least) absolutist, but it does provide interesting new light and avenues of thought towards the evidence.
"Why is the truth so hard to accept that people go through endless gyrations to reject it? "
Because as yet the "truth" in these cases remains unproven, unestablished and un-demonstrated, as anyone with half an understanding of the case, or a modicum of common sense would easily grasp.
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi all
In regard to the fashionable notion to dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim and addressing the question about the numbers of murders in the area, there was a big spike in homicides when the Ripper began his work.
If Stride was not a Ripper victim we have to acknowledge that there were two killers loose in the area, who both killed with a deep throat cut, in a locality were such murders had not been common previously.
Then you have the point that Hutch made that the second murder of the night, another deep throat cut, albeit this time followed by post mortem abdominal and other mutilations, took place only 45 minutes later and ten minutes walk from Berner Street. Joan O'Liari also brings up some valuable points of similarity between the Stride and Eddowes killing that should be factored in as good arguments for a common murderer of the two women. Similarly, David Radka makes a good point about the cachous. I think a fair argument can be made that the Ripper was a gift-giver -- Polly Nichol's bonnet, the red scarves, the cachous, all seem to make a pattern that should be considered.
In comparison, in regard to the possible candidacy of Michael Kidney as Stride's killer, which people blithely state as probable but with little to back up their claim, I have yet to hear any strong evidence that Michael Kidney did the murder or even that he had the capacity to do so. He appears to have been a somewhat morose and nervous drunkard, based on his performance at her inquest and one wonders if he had the capacity to do what the murderer actually did, lay her on the ground and dispatch her with one long single cut across her throat. That does not sound like a domestic killing.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1741
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Chris
With the best will in the world I have to say that Robert previously posted an article from The Times where the killer did exactly what you say:
'lay her on the ground and dispatch her with one long single cut across the throat.'
And this was a self-admitted domestic killing brought about by jealousy and rage.
I'm sorry but I still feel that the cachous were a 'fluff', just like the flowers and grapes, and are all indicators of Stride's behaviour earlier in the evening, rather than indicators in the actual crime.
They all mean she had a date, and was concerned to look her best, and that she was being wooed by a gentleman with another money to buy such things.
It does seem unreasonable to suppose that the same gentleman would then cut her throat.
I'm still working on just how common violent death was amongst the 'unfortunate' class of Whitechapel during the LVP, but results are already showing that we must review our impression that the violent murder of prostitutes during the LVP was unusual.
Yes, two serial killers operating in the Whitechapel area of London at the same time would be highly unusual, but I would not shiver or shy away from the prospect of several prostitutes being murdered on the same night by different individuals.
It happened, I'm afraid. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Thanks for your opinion. As for the gift-giving, I should think most men who go with a prostitute pay for the sexual act and don't give gifts over and above what they are paying.
The gift-giving fits with the idea that the killer did something, or had something about his personality or occupation (priest? social worker? policeman?) that helped to allay the women's fears and facilitated the murder and escape.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 126
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
The evidence for Stride as a Kidney victim is, IMHO, more convincing than that she was a Ripper victim.
It's all be set out above for you to read.
As with most things Ripperesque it is a matter of judgement and opinion which way you incline.
You differ from us - that is your privelege.
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3112
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
There are several problems with Stride being a Ripper victim. If she was, then we have to accept that Mr Broad Shoulders was her killer, which is an absolute fairy-tale. That man was certainly not JtR, bt he was probably her killer.
Or else we have to accept the fact that a second man approached her and killed her after Mr Broad Shoulders left, but the witness statements -- especially that from Mrs Mortimer, leaves very little room for another man. She came outside after the Schwartz incident and she neither saw Stride or any other person whatsoever on Berner Street, up to the time she was found. We can chose to totally disregard her testimony, of course, and we can chose to make acrobatic intellectual exercises in order get around those problems, but such actions are based on a personal belief of her being a canonical victims -- on personal wishes rather than facts.
As for domestic killings... as I have said a million times (and which was a point that was constantly thrown in my face when I believed her to be a JtR victim), the same night we also have domestic killing in Westminster, involving a throat cut on a woman. Domestic crimes were common and throat cuts was not an exceptional way of killing someone at the time. besides, Stride was a prostitutes, and she was subjected to drunkards, pimps, ruffians etc. every night.
Domestic killings do not have to take place inside, and as far as Kidney is concerned (although I believe there are other alternatives as well), he certainly seem to have both the personality for it, as well as a credible motive.
He was known to be violent and Stride had nearly put charges against him on several occasions. Then we have his very strange and mocking testimony at the inquest, displaying a behaviour that is weird for a mourning companion, to say the least, and where his aggressive personality is fairly evident. I'd say he as a very unpleasant character and most certainly a dreg beyond belief.
Does this prove that he killed her? of course not, but there is really no proof of that the Ripper killed her either, besides the comfortable connection with the Eddowes murder.
Chris George, there WERE several knife killers in East End in 1888 and the surrounding years! Unless you believe that the torso murders and also all the probably copy-cat killings in the aftermath of the Ripper murders must be attributed to him as well. jack the Ripper was most certainly NOT the only killer in east End in 1888, and probably not the only multiple killer either.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 585
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 9:13 pm: |
|
Hi,
Another possible explanation for the cachous is that Liz kept them tucked up the sleeve of her dress and they fell out once she was on the ground having her throat cut. As I recall, they were found between her thumb and index finger, which doesn't sound quite so much like she's grasping full onto them. My grandmother used to keep tissues up her sleeve like this, which is why I always think of this when considering the cachous.
Of course, this can only be speculative since we don't know enough details about Liz's dress/blouse. In order for this to be a viable explanation, the sleeves would have to be suitable. Meaning, long sleeves with a tight cuff (elastic band gathering cuffs maybe?)
Anyway, this possibility means that one shouldn't too quickly assume that there necessarily must have been a pause between the initial assault by Mr. BS and Liz's murder in order for her to get out the cachous. If they just "fell out during the later stages of the assault", then no pause is necessarily required by the evidence. There may have been a pause, but there did not have to be in order to explain the evidence. A big difference, and one which means I'm not saying Liz must have kept her cachous up her sleeve, only that she might have. The important thing for us to remember is that we do not know which of these was actually the case.
- Jeff |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 252
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Dear Jeff: Thanks for posting that about the cachous being between the index finger and the thumb ! So much for the grasping of these sweetmeats ! A dozen possible alternatives surface...
Glenn...Me again..Just out of curiosity,how many domestic murders happened outdoors that you could name from personal research ? Most men that kill their wives don't want witnesses and vice versa...I'm drinking for the both of us tonight...
How
(Message edited by howard on February 15, 2005) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 88
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Howard,
If Kidney had in fact planned on getting rid of her, do you think it'd be logical to kill her in their own home? No way. If he was smart, he'd do it where people would least suspect he did it and while the Ripper murders were at a high.
Take care |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 127
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:59 am: |
|
Given the circumstances, it might appear that Kidney killeed her in an unpremeditated way, in the heat of the moment. maybe Liz taunted him with her new admirer, or simply refused to obey him - that would tie in with his throwing her down. The evidence we have suggests an unplanned attack. Something that fits for me. |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 166
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:15 am: |
|
Hello all!
(Here we go again!) Glenn, you wrote:
"I see that we begin to agree a bit more regarding the importance of the press -- always something."
Yes, that IS good. And yes, the press were very important to make JtR well known at the time.
"I have already explained the points about "same characteristics of age, cut throat, location of the body, time of the killing, etc." several times, and I more or less discount them as any evidence of the Ripper being at work."
What? You shifted this topic to a different thread so it could be discussed here, and then the first thing you do is point out that you have already answered those points before. Would you mind explaining what the logic in that is?
"Throat cut and time of night -- means nothing; the throat cut was not the same and possibly not done with the same knife as Eddowes (although that is uncertain), throat-cutting was a very common way of killing people in East End at the time, also in domestic crimes (the same night we also had a throat-cut assault of a housewife in Westminster), and several of the other throat cut murders in the area proves this (unless we want to attribute them all to the Ripper)."
Yes, that is true. A cut throat was a common way of death at the time, especially in such a violent place. But twice in 1 night, with the similarities that do exist with other victims, is just a little too much of a coincidence, I think. If they were 1 week apart, for example, it may be a little more unbelievable, but on the same night is either one of the biggest coincidences ever, or they were both victims of the Ripper. I choose the latter.
"No, that is wrong -- we do NOT know that the killer was interrupted, Adam. That is only assumed. And I don't think he was, at least not by Diemschutz."
There just isn't enough time otherwise though, Glenn. It's like with Catherine Eddowes, the killer had a maximum of 10 minutes. But if he had tested out how long it took him on Liz Stride first, then he would have worked out how to move faster. Elizabeth Stride was seen by Schwartz at around 12:45 AM, and found by Diemschutz at 1 AM. Now even if both these times were a couple of minutes out, he was still very short on time. If Kidney was her killer, the question must be asked - Since he hadn't killed before, would he have been able to inflict the wounds he did on her and get away in that time? Did he know what he was doing enough? If it was Jack the Ripper, then he had already killed atleast 2, probably 3 women before Liz, and knew what he was doing by then. If he could escape in 10 minutes with Cathy Eddowes, he could escape in 15 with Liz Stride. That's logical. But since it still was a short time, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he had heard Diemschutz coming, or was atleast still in the immediate area when Diemschutz went through. Schwartz, I believe, DID see the killer. Mr. Broad Shoulders. If that's so, then the killer was interrupted not by Schwartz, but by Liz herself, when she was resisting.
"I can possibly believe Mr Broad Shoulders was her killer, but he was not Jack the Ripper."
Well, if Stride was a Ripper victim, and Mr. Broad Shoulders killed her, then he is Jack the Ripper. As I said above, I believe Schwartz saw the killer of Elizabeth Stride, but not only that, he saw Jack the Ripper.
"And since I can't with all the will in the world accept the clumsy and very extrovert conduct of Broad Shoulders as the behaviour of the elusive Jack the Ripper, I'd say it is not -- in my personal opinion -- very likely that she was a victim of the Ripper, but that the close connection with the Eddowes murder in fact was a sheer coincidence."
Well Liz herself was seen resisting by Schwartz, as you know. She even let out a few small screams. That doesn't mean that the killer was Clumsy. When people trip over, they don't do it intentionally. Well, usually not. So on the same taken, I doubt Liz's attacker meant for her to scream and resist either.
Besides that, we know that out of the 5 victims, Stride was quite probably the healthiest and strongest at the time of her death. Polly Nichols was very drunk when she was killed, and Annie Chapman had been drinking too. So my opinion is the Ripper thought Liz would be the same, but was in store for a rude surprise. Just because Liz was known to have resisted doesn't mean that her killer wasn't Jack.
That's a pretty big coincidence, if it was.
"As far as I know, no one has seriously questioned the inclusions of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and I fail to see why they should."
Haven't you ever heard the theory that Jack the Ripper never even existed, and that different women were killed by different people? Oh yes, there has been doubt on others at times too.
"I really don't think this is the place for it, but your assumptions are all wrong, not least regarding the age thing. It is not uncommon for a serial killer to disregard the victim's age. We have many examples of where serial killers kills people of quite different age groups and this is widely recorded."
I was comparing them to Stride and the other JtR victims, Glenn. I know age has nothing to do with it, but I was just pointing out that except Mary Kelly, all of JtR's victims were very close in age group, and Jonsson / Kofoed have almost half a century between them. And the fact that Liz was killed the same time as other victims, when there was a long space between Jonsson / Kofoed.
"2) The suspect -- who travelled around all over Denmark and Sweden -- happened to be (in spite of his vagrant way of life) at those exact locations at exactly the same times as the murders occurred, which is documented proof and also admitted by himself. His activities span from 1900 to 1908 -- of those we know of, that is -- and different parts of Scandinavia."
Madsen. Yes, that's the case FOR him, Glenn, but what about the doubtful points AGAINST him?
First, he had no problems admitting to other rapes, etc, and even the murder of Kjersti Jonsson at one point, and yet he flatly denied any involvement with the killing of Dagmar Kofoed. Why would he not worry about admitting to several other cases, when he always denied any involvement in that case? It makes no sense.
Second, the killings weren't too far away from each other, so it's not an absolute miracle that he was in the same area 5 years between each other. I'm sure many others were too. It's not like the killings were on opposite sides of Sweden or anything.
But, you're the author, not me, so I'll leave that one alone, since I don't know the ins and outs of it, you do.
"Regardless of which, we will never know for sure, and we can debate this til the end of time, Adam. You are 100% set in your belief -- I am not. In my personal opinion I see the trademarks of a domestic or client-related assault, and although I can't totally rule her out as a Ripper victim, I'd say her inclusion is merely based on coincidences, assumptions and personal wishes rather than real facts supporting it. But that is just what I believe."
Yes, it seems like we will never come to an agreement on it, because we have too many opposing opinions.
But, it's still good to debate it, because you can learn things while you're at it. Just because there's no agreement is no reason to stop discussing it completely.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
I am not saying that there were not knife murders in the East End -- it was a violent, brutish area and we know of numerous attacks or murder with the use of a knife in addition to the more famous murders, and here I would include the lesser known Whitechapel murders such as Emma Smith, Clay Pipe Alice McKenzie, Frances Coles, etc. You and I have the same information on these cases.
Glenn, all I am saying is that before the murder spree in the autumn of 1888 it had been a relatively quiet period and suddenly there was a significant spike in knife murders and notably of murders of a singular type, a killer with a specific signature, the crimes that we have under discussion.
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Mr. Radka, I respect your intellectual level, but I feel your approach limits the analasis unjustifiably. Are you calling the whole international community stupid?
For me, Stride clearly was a Ripper victim. Use your imagination, and you might spot some new evidence.
Surprised,
Joan Taylor. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
The cachous a can of worms?
I’ll say, I wish I’d never mentioned it in the first place
Your scenario would certainly work, as would a few others, but one thing is certain, one of those scenarios is the right one, and for Mr Anderson to say…
“How this or any other so called "evidence" proves her to be a victim of the Ripper goes beyond me, though. The cachous proves nothing of the sort regarding that particular question -- then may tell us the most possible way she was killed, but they certainly don't tell us WHO killed her.”
Is a little much. The cachous(in my opinion) is important.
Nobody is suggesting Mr Andersson that the cachous can contribute to telling us WHO JTR was, you know as well as I do that there is not a single scrap of evidence to suggest who the killer was, but I think you tottaly missed the point I was making.
My point was this and this only.
Schwartz saw a man attacking Liz at 12:45 a.m. the man pulled her into the road, she struggled with him, he then turned her round and threw her to the pavement. Now if at that time she was holding the packet of cachous(remember when found she had a packet in her left hand) I am of the opinion that the packet would have become dislodged, the first instinctive thing you do when thrown to the ground, is to open your palms to prevent serious injury.
Now for this attacker to have been her murderer, she would have had to pick up the cachous after the initial attack ( in my opinion highly unlikely) then be dragged nine feet into Duttfields Yard, and (still holding on to the cachous) be
murdered.
On these grounds,In my opinion, the attacker as witnessed by Schwartz was not her killer. She never had the cachous in her hand during the Attack as witnessed by Schwartz. The cachous tells us this.
I am of the opinion that the cachous comes after this attack, but more of this later.
You also wrote Mr Andersson….
“Or else we have to accept the fact that a second man approached her and killed her after Mr Broad Shoulders left, but the witness statements -- especially that from Mrs Mortimer, leaves very little room for another man.”
You then in another post contradicted yourself by stating that………
Stride was killed after the incident seen by Schwartz and there would have sufficient time for Mr Broad Shoulders to mutilate her without being disturbed. There was no one to disturb him until Diemschutz arrived and this was quite some time later.
So what is it to be Mr Andersson?
Quote…
“Leaves very little time for another man”
Or
Quote…
“Diemschutz arrived and this was quite some time later.”
It was 15 minutes later Mr Andersson, more than enough time for another man to approach Liz and kill her.
I did (as stated in my first post on this thread) have some difficulties with the approach of a second assailant on the grounds of
A) If Liz had been attacked at 12:45 a.m. then what woman in her right mind would stick around the area, let alone allow a second man to take her nine feet into a lonely Yard for sex
B) The taking out of a packet of cachous after being subjected to a viscious attack, didn’t seem to me to be the kind of action a woman would take after just such an attack. It seems (to me) to be the kind of action a woman would take if she was calm and collected.
Both of the above could be explained however in the post submitted by David Radka.
That is.
A) Schwartz’s attacker was known to Liz Stride (possibly Michael Kidney) That way It’s possible that Liz (wanting to earn more money) stayed in the area
B) The cachous didn’t belong to Liz Stride, and was given to Liz by her attacker.
Mr Andersson wrote
“Domestic crimes were common and throat cuts was not an exceptional way of killing someone at the time.”
This is true, but lets take a look at the Liz Stride killing. Liz was nine feet into a dark yard at the time of her murder, she was a prostitute, actively soliciting that night, what other reason can you suggest other than the fact that she was about to service a client when she met her death that night?
Her throat was cut, JTR Cut the Throats of prostitutes, 45 minutes later another prostitute is found dead with her throat cut.
And you call Stride’s a domestic murder?
I will leave you with the words of constable Henry Lamb, who examined the body shortly after 1:00 a.m. he said at the inquest…
“There were no signs of a struggle. Some of the blood was in a liquid state, and had run towards the kitchen door of the club. A little - that nearest to her on the ground - was slightly congealed. “
How long does blood take to congeal?
What state would the blood have been in after 20 minutes(Schwartz’s attacker)?
Because some of the blood was still in a liquid state, the blood nearest to her was only slightly congealed.
I am of the opinion that Liz was murdered just on one o clock , and that the killer was disturbed by Diemshutz, I also believe that the killer was JTR
Regards Cludgy
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
