|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 180
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 5:53 am: | 
|
Hi again all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"Firstly, you are doing the same thing repeatedly -- stating that other people are wrong, and you do that in self-secure manner, indicating that everyone who doesen't agree with you is wrong. You do this all the time. And I never ask you to produce any evidence."
I think you are exaggerating my approach, Glenn. I may have been very self-assured in my first 2 weeks or so here, but since then, as far as I know, if I have ever said that anyone is wrong, I have always provided opinions of why I think they are wrong, I don't just say it straight out. If I have, then please point out where I have, because I just don't know.
"And when I say someone is wrong, I mean IN MY OPINION. News flash for you, Adam: NO ONE here can produce evidence of anything. Not you, and certainly not me. Not anyone. It still doesen't mean that you can't deliver opinions or totally disagree with what people are saying."
I know that, Glenn. Actually, reading back through my post, I worded it wrong. I didn't mean 'prove' in the sense of providing a forensic lab's worth of evidence, but 'prove' more in the sense of 'justify', if you know what I mean. As in, justify what you are saying and why you are saying it, instead of just saying it and that's all.
Frank, you wrote:
"Although we have no way of knowing for sure if she was actually standing in the entrance to the yard, there’s no reason why Stride couldn’t have been standing there, whether you can think of a reason or not. And why couldn’t Schwartz have been paying enough attention? Or why couldn’t he have seen the whole thing? To start speculating about such things wouldn’t get us any further, if you ask me."
As you say, it's just speculation.
But, personally, I believe that Schwartz wasn't paying attention to start off with. What would be so unusual about a man stopping and talking to a women on the street in such a place as that? Schwartz no doubt would have seen that dozens of times before, why would he need to stop and look at just that? IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't until the man pushed Stride down that Schwartz stopped and watched, at which point the man shouted over at him. And then he moved on quickly again after that, with another man possibly following him. So, based on that, I don't believe he had been paying full attention to all of what had happened. I believe what he said though, don't get me wrong. That's not it at all.
" So, I’m not only exaggerating, I’m doing more than that and I’m doing it badly, eh? Hmmm…"
Well, I guess you could put it that way...
"Of course, we would have seen the PC’s walking their beats and we may have seen some of the night watchmen, although they probably stayed inside the premises they were supposed to watch. But they were there anyway, regardless of whether a neighbourhood or street was lively or not, so, as to the numbers of people being around they wouldn’t make much of a difference between each of the murder scenes."
Just guessing here, but I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by saying 'policemen' could also be included. I was referring mostly to Catherine Eddowes, who was in the police lock up until only a fairly short time before her death, and she was watched leaving. So, the police were involved in the last hours of Cathy's life, and that's what I meant when I listed them in my last post. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.
"What else would we have seen in the 30-40 minutes before each victim was discovered? According to the evidence we would have seen some 15 people in Stride’s case (including Mrs. Mortimer) and we would probably have heard some noise coming from the Socialist Club, indicating there were people wide awake inside."
Much is made of Stride being killed next to a busy Socialist Club, with many people in it. But the front entrance was the one mostly used, there was only a side entrance apart from that. And we know that Stride's body was barely even visible from this side door, once Diemschutz had alerted some people inside the building. So, that isn't really more serious than Chapman's killings, in part-daylight, and with people starting to pass by more and more on their way to the markets.
"So, the way I see it is that, regardless of the fact that probably anybody could have caught JtR in the act, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed at what seem to have been quiet locations just prior to the murders, but not Stride."
As I just pointed out above, if you analyse it carefully, Stride's killing wasn't a great amount more dangerous than Chapman's. Nichols and Eddowes were probably the least dangerous ones, and Kelly later on. In any case, the many witnesses you mention in Stride's case weren't all of the greatest importance. If you include some Stride witnesses, as I listed above, then you would have to include every person who had something to do with one of the victims within a 2 hour gap before their killings. As I mentioned, John Richardson as an example in the Chapman killing. It's not as straight forward in the Stride case as it first seems.
Anyway, I hope you can make sense of this post. Even I know that some of what I have written is pretty confusing, but I don't know of a better way to explain what I mean, so I hope you can work it out!
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
What Frank says about witness 'noise' in the Stride murder is of course right.
It seems fairly pointless to dispute such well recorded fact, it may not sit well with some but a general acceptance that the Stride killing differs in this particular fashion would be gracious.
About a year ago I did compare the Stride murder to an episode of East-Enders, and I still think that a very valid comparison.
All the other killings are like the 'Blair Witch Project', you haven't a clue what is going on, you see and hear nothing, and are left wishing you had watched East-Enders instead, because at least you understood the banal plot. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 500
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Tak Glenn! And glad to have been of help.
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 501
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Hi again Adam,
"IIRC, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't until the man pushed Stride down that Schwartz stopped and watched, at which point the man shouted over at him."
According to Swanson’s summary report dated 19 October, which is the only official report that included Schwartz’ complete account (for instance, others were only about the Lispki issue), Schwartz saw the man stop and talk to the woman. This implies that he at least saw Mr. BS’s last steps when he walked over to Stride. If we then take a look at the Star article, we see that especially most of the first half of it corresponds with what Swanson wrote down.
An addition to his summary was that in the Star Schwartz was reported to have been walking some distance behind Mr. BS, when he had turned into Berner Street from Commercial Road. So, he walked a short distance behind him when he noticed Stride as well and saw Mr. BS walk over to her in the entrance to the yard. As he was just making a summary, there’s every chance that Swanson just left this part out. Anyway, from both these reports the most likely thing to have happened seems that Schwartz had indeed been walking behind Mr. BS and that he saw the incident from the start.
"So, the police were involved in the last hours of Cathy's life, and that's what I meant when I listed them in my last post. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused."
You did indeed cause confusion, or better yet, what you actually meant is not what I understood from your post at all. But hey, English isn’t my native language, so it could just be me. But - no worries!
However, as I’ve tried to explain, I’ve purely been talking about people connected to the crime scenes and surroundings, not about people connected to the victims, like those police officers at the police station you were referring to.
"So, that isn't really more serious than Chapman's killings, in part-daylight, and with people starting to pass by more and more on their way to the markets."
That’s not completely true, as the people in the Socialist Club were obviously wide awake, which must also have been noticeable for someone in the street, whereas the residents in no. 29 Hanbury Street weren’t - not yet anyway.
But regardless of this, if we would try to see things from the Ripper’s prospective, which was really my point, there wouldn’t have been many people around, if any, shortly before the Ripper must have met Chapman in the street, while in Stride’s case there obviously were. Although she was close by, even Mrs. Long doesn’t seem to have entered Hanbury Street until after the couple actually met.
"In any case, the many witnesses you mention in Stride's case weren't all of the greatest importance."
From a police point of view they may not have been. But, judging from the other 3 cases, from a Ripper point of view there’s a good chance that they were, or at least, that’s my view.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3162
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Well, actually it is rather simple. We don't see any of this kind of behaviour in the other Ripper murders, and especially not in those three that we truly can regard as canonical -- Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Neither of those murders were done or initiated in full view of witnesses. We don't know, of course, how the Ripper would have reacted if someone would have stepped out of the door in the Hanbury Street yard, for example. But I hardly think he would have displayed such a noisy behaviour, attracting attention to himself.
I totally agree with AP and Frank regarding the "noise" issue; this is totally differening the schwartz indident from the other murder scenes, and it can't be disregarded.
My bet is that if the Ripper was caught in the act like the assaulting man was in Berner Street, then would simply had fled fast as hell, because it is clear from the murders in general, that he did not like attention. Therefore Mr Broad Shoulders' behaviour is totally contradictive.The Ripper didn't make any assaults or struggles with his victims. He surprised them before they knew what hit them, and killed them directly. This is all evident from the crime scene information of the other murders, and quite consistent in all of them. He didn't attack his victim in such an awkward manner displayed by Mr Broad Shoulders, who clearly was an amateur and a violent drunkard.
This, combined with the fact that we in Stride's case have a suitable suspect in her own personal circuits, make sme conclude that she may not have been a Ripper victim, although I would never bet on it 100%.
naturally, those are my own opinions, and I have explained this about twenty times now, and can't elaborate more than I already have. Of course I have no evidence of this, just a personal hunch and what my common sense tells me. And it tells me that Mr Broad Shoulders was not the Ripper.
Sorry, Caz, but I can't make it any clearer than that. You are free to buy it, or you don't.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 186
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
Hmmm,
If we can all put aside our opinions for a sec I just want to hypothesize.
Let's assume that for one reason or another BS was not Liz's killer. This could be that it was Liz he attacked but he did not kill her someone else did. It could also be that the woman Schwartz saw being assaulted was not Liz at all. Anyway, just accept it for a second.
Let's say that JtR approached all of his victims under the guise of engaging them for sex. It is a commonly held belief by many here on the boards that the prostitute would have taken her client to a spot where their business could be completed. If this had been the approach in the Stride case then the number of people in the vicinity becomes far less important than some are stating on this thread in my opinion. Jack would have effectively put his faith in the Prostitutes' ability to know where they would not be interrupted. In this way perhaps Jack could have been more cautious certainly in the Stride murder, but perhaps the location was not of his choosing.
Just to note Frank, you make a lot of mileage from how many people were in the club. I'm sure I am correct in stating that directly across from the entrance to Miller's Court on Dorset Street was a lodging house with room for 300 which was full most nights. I think I am also correct in stating that it was not the only large lodging house on Dorset Street. With that in mind I find it very difficult to believe that walking up Dorset Street at any time during the night, a person could expect to not be sighted. With people arriving home at late hours or leaving for work at early hours there must only have been a couple of hours of lull in the middle of the night. I haven't looked at the other murder sites but I suspect that similar situations might exist. I wonder if our idea of how deserted the streets were at night is correct or perhaps created by too many atmospheric films.
Scotty.
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Yes Caz Glenn is correct it’s rather simple. But not simple as he sees it, its simple like this:
Jack the man (not Jack The Phantom)....drum roll please...was seen either a) attacking or b) subduing, what would turn out to be a victim. Glenn locks onto words like "clumsy" because in his mind he wants the Ripper to be stealthy and sly. The fact that he has stated that he can't in a hundred years will himself to see jack yelling at someone or assaulting (more likely restraining) them in public (like it was times square at new years anyway) shows just how far he has "willed" himself in the other direction (sorry I cant find Glenn’s exact quote but its was at least 100 years of willing, possibly 1000 that still could not convince him Mr. Bs could be JTR). I fear Glenn will go even further into the JTR could not have been seen or heard category as more people disagree with him. Not that he could go much further anyway. In fact he has gone so far as to state, "He was elusive, because he was never seen in action -- that is not romanticism; that is facts.". Hmmm, sounds to me like speculation with a bit of circular reasoning thrown in for good measure, not fact. The simple fact is that most experts (as well as the police at the time) have agreed that Stride was probably a Ripper victim. And she probably was. Not definitely...no absolutes here...but probably. Unless there is compelling evidence to think other wise, the widely held belief that Stride was a Ripper victim should not be dismissed lightly. And the fact that a huge coincidence COULD have occurred or a boyfriend COULD be jealous enough to kill is not at all compelling.
Now Glenn let me say this...on these boards that can sometimes become quite unpleasant I post my strong responses to your viewpoints only because I respect your points in so many other areas of the case. I just have to think for whatever reason you have developed a blind spot when it comes to the acceptance of victims and nowhere is that as pronounced as in you TOTAL dismissal of Stride.
|
pf arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
Scott,
Following your 'lets pretend' about liz prostituting, if she had taken a client into the yard why (as mentioned by someone else elsewhere on the boards, jane i think) did she stop just inside the gate way and not go further back pass the club entrance/exit where they'd be less likely to be disturbed.
Also if Liz had been hanging round the area to pick up clients surly the people leaving the pub and social club would have been 'targets'. In which case leading a client to a place where not only they could be disturbed, but disturbed by the friends leaving the club later then them would not have been sound business practise.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Hi Scotty,
I'm wondering if Jack was expecting Liz to take him somewhere quieter and safer (from his point of view), and that she resisted because of the recent murders, reasoning that she would feel safer doing 'business' right there in Dutfield's Yard, with plenty of people nearby. Perhaps she reckoned that if she were unlucky enough to be propositioned by the monster himself, he wouldn't risk ripping her up right there, and therefore she would be safe as long as she stood her ground.
Perhaps Liz thought along the same lines as Glenn; that if she refused to play ball, anyone who meant her serious harm, including the killer if he was on the prowl that night, would almost certainly run off into the night, rather than cause a fuss and draw attention to himself.
That may be why it appeared, from what Schwartz said, that she had been wrong-footed by her assailant; that she just wasn't expecting to be attacked in a spot with so much activity going on nearby.
And Jack, frustrated and annoyed by the female's unexpected show of resistance, took it out on Schwartz initially, as the first interfering Jew of the evening, and then couldn't resist teaching the unco-operative woman a lesson she had little time to forget.
Speculation is such fun, don't you think?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 23, 2005) |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Hey extendedping,
You take the words right out of my mouth again. Your posts are the most reasonable and straight to the point that I have read on here. I am in FULL agreement again.
Glenn, I know you probably don't have much respect for my opinions on this, as we sort of agreed to disagree on Stride, but let me just point out.
You seem to think that either:
1. Mr. BS killed Liz (this seems to be your current idea), but that Mr. BS was not JTR.
or
2. Liz was killed not killed by Mr. BS and was in fact killed by JTR.
In other words, you do not seem to exclude either the possibility that Mr. BS killed Liz, OR that JTR killed Liz, but you can seem to combine these 2 possibilities into a third possible option, option, namely:
3. Mr. BS was in fact JTR.
This is essentially why I have such a problem with your argument: it is not based a dismissal of Stride as a Ripper victim because of differences in the MO of killing, or the analysis of Stride's wounds, or the timing of events (which basically fits Mr. BS as the killer)... No, your argument is based solely on your own preconceived idea of how JTR would have acted in the event of being witnessed in the middle of an attack. Whatever you may argue, there is basically zero in the way of evidence to back this up.
I would not even have bothered to bring this up except for the fact that you always discard this third option with 100% certainty, and it is somewhat baffling to those of us who still entertain the notion that Mr. BS MAY HAVE BEEN the Ripper. I mean to me, either of the first two options seem pretty unlikely, but I will at least conceed that either is entirely possible.
You have said that if Mr. BS was JTR then you are in line for the British throne. Well, I will await a response from you, your royal heighness, although I realize I might not get it.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3164
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Cludgy,
"No Glen I have not forgot Mrs Mortimers testimony, and do not wholly discredit it, but I do question it, it is not consistent, she changed her testimony several times, as did Mr Packer, and I know what you think of Mr Packer Glenn, I think at one stage you called him a charlatan, poor Mr Packer, and all for changing his testimony.
Are you still as confident with Mrs Mortimer now Glenn?
Yes Mrs Mortimer. At one stage she said that she had remained at her door from 12:30, until 1:00, why then did she not see the Schwartz assailant?"
Hmmm... ouch... got me there, Cludgy. I haven't thought of Packer for a while. Well, let me just say that Mr Packer is quite in a different league of his own, and his elaborations are of a more spectacular nature. Mrs Mortimer -- if she told the truth or was reliable at all -- displays some uncertainty regarding the time she stood there, that is all. In Packer's case there are a lot of other strange features and he also gives two different descritons of the man -- Packer changes his testimony in quite many ways and details. I do believe he as an attention-seeker, but today I am not so sure about him being a total fraud; it can't be ruled out that he did experience some sort of incident, but that he then used it in order to attract people to his shop.
As for Mrs Mortimer, all I am saying is, that if she stood in the door facing Berner Street at this time, then she only must have stood there for about ten minutes -- fifteen tops. And in that case I truly believe she missed the whole Schwartz incident.
"Entrapped, instant death,, daring defiance, no blood spoiled the operator,
Does this sound familiar Glenn?
It does to me."
True, Cludgy. I have never said that there weren't similarities. But fact remains, the throat cut wound wasn't as deep as in the other cases. He hardly severed the head, as nearly was the case in the others.
We also have throat cuts in the other murders occurred after the MJK incident, and unless you want to attribute them to the Ripper (personally I see them as copy-cats) they display a magnitude not close to the one in Berner Street as well. In a case where we haven't any mutilations -- which certainly is the Ripper's main element of signature -- it is quite hard to immediately deduct or accept that it must be the work of the Ripper. To state otherwise, is based on the fallacy that throat cuts were uncommon.
True again, Cludge. I find it very unlikely -- and a bit of a strecth -- that Stride was subjected to two violent characters after one another in ten to fifteen minutes. And I believe researchers like Paul Begg and others are of the same opinion. As I see it, the Schwartz incident was the prelude to her actual murder -- here we actually have an assault on a murdered victim being viewed by a witness, and I don't see any reason think that it had nothing to do with her actual death. To speculate about a second killer (which I myself did initially and stressed rather hard when I first started out here), is total unfounded speculation, and I don't give it any credence whatsoever.
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: 3165
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
OK, extendedping.
Now you are just being sarcastic for the joy of it -- you may find my personal opinions and funny and laughable, but fact is that you brush them off with the same self-assureness as you state that I have on the matter.
"Jack the man (not Jack The Phantom)....drum roll please...was seen either a) attacking or b) subduing, what would turn out to be a victim. Glenn locks onto words like "clumsy" because in his mind he wants the Ripper to be stealthy and sly."
I am really sick and tired of hearing this.
I do NOT see the Ripper as a "phantom", and certianly not as "stealthy and sly". I see him as a compulsive, street-smart killer who performs his crimes because he haves to, even if the circumstances would be difficult. But he was certainly not a planning genious, and he also show signs of carelessness.
However, from the evidence of his crimes, we can see in practically all the canonical murders, that he was efficient, fast and not at all clumsy. A clumsy person would not have managed to pull it off.
Mr Broad Shoulders display a different type of behaviour, and I can not see him as the Ripper, simply because his approach totally contradict the crime scenes on the other Ripper sites. The Ripper's victims were killed fast and taken by immediate surprise -- Nichols even died with her eyes open, which is a sign of instant death.
I am basing this on what the crime scenes tell me, and they don't for a moment that the victim was subjected to an awkward assault before they died. Neither do I believe the Ripper was a character who attracted attention to himself.
You can continue to shout that I am mindset about my view on the Ripper until you're blue in the face and you are free to disagree, but to make fun of and ridicule my opinions -- just because they don't fit your ideas -- really is the lowest kind of arguments that anyone can produce.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 23, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3166
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Rob,
It is true, for some strange reason we never really seem to agree on anything in the Ripper case. But those things just happen, I guess.
It is a correct that I don't accept Mr BS as the Ripper, and besides Klosowski not being the Riper, that is probably the only element in the Ripper case that rings so untrue to me that I am prepare to put it on a stake and dismiss it, although I know that is a dangerous thing to do.
Well, naturally I would be a total idiot to rule him out as the Ripper 100%, but it is practically so unlikely from where I sit, that it actually comes close.
It is not just based on pure psychological behaviour studies, but fact remains that the crime scene evidence in at least three of the other murders (which we do attribute to JtR), displays an approach -- total and immediate surprise, strangulation, fast death without signs of any prior struggle -- that differs quite much from the one seen in Mr BS. Unless Stride -- against all reasonable odds -- was killed by a second man, the incident seen by Schwartz totally contradicts on all counts the behaviour of the Ripper.
Just my personal interpretations, though, but I do find it so unlikely that it comes close to total certianty, in my head.
Especially considering that we in Stride's case have at least one plausible suspect in her own personal circuit of aquaintaces, a man whom she had left several times and who were abusive to such an extent that she several times came close to press charges against him.
To me that bears the hallmarkd of a domestic-related killing, if it wasn't an ordinary drunk but brutal client-related killing. Like in the case of Tabram, I see people being to willing to accept the murder as a part of a series. But once again, just my 2 pence. At least I am glad that AP Wolf and Frank seem to share some of my opinions in this, which do not make it a fluke on my own part altogether.
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: 591
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hi,
I've been playing around a bit with taking some measurements from maps, and using this to estimate times required to walk distances. Obviously, any results from these sorts of things must be viewed as no more than interesting calculations because certain, unverified values, have to be used in these "simulations."
Anyway, I had a look at the summary of Schwartz's statement (found on the site):
12.45 a.m. 30th Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street [Ellen St], Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road & having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.
etc.
As we are all well aware, watches were not common, and I doubt Schwartz owned one. Even if he did, the events he describe do not lend themselves to one where he's likely to have looked at it. Therefore, his time of 12:45 is at worst an estimate, but at best it's the time he noted on some public clock, probably on Commercial Road.
His statement of 12:45, however, can easily be seen as his time on entering Berner street, and not the time he witnessed the events. Obviously, this view is also unverifiable. Even if the statement above is considered "unambiguous" in associating the time with the event, we must be cautious because we 1) only have a summary (potential source of error) and 2) we cannot be sure what details might have been lost in the translation (Schwartz's statement was given through a translator).
Since going with the time as indicating when he saw the crime is one end of the extreme, I want to focus here on the other end. What if 12:45 is not the time he witnessed the events, but is the time when he turned onto Berner street? It's not that far, but he does have to walk it.
So, I grabbed the map of the Stride murder location found in the "Maps showing movement" thread. From this, I was able to calculate the number of pixels from Commercial street to the Crime scene.
Unfortunately, the map doesn't have a scale bar. So, I used the one found in A-Z, which gives me yards. Using the two maps, I took two measurements, and obtained an average "pixels per yard" convertion factor.
Using this, I estimated the distance from Commercial street to the crime scene to be approximately 356.2 feet, and with 5,280 feet per mile, at a walking speed of 2 miles per hour, that means it would take Schwartz about 2 minutes and 5 seconds to get from entering Berner street to the crime scene itself.
I can hardly see the events described by Schwartz requring any significant amount of time (and much of it would be included in the above 2 min, 5 sec; ie. walking along seeing the fellow stop to talk to Stride, etc).
In other words, the events as described by Schwartz may have occurred at 12:47 am, and still be considered as fitting the known data.
Pushing our time window for the events even later could also be suggested if we could suggest a "likely location" where Schwartz might have looked at a clock. If it were only half the distance again, that pushes the events a minute later again (12:48).
Allow for human error, meaning if the clock reads 12:46 or 12:47, a person could reasonably just think "It's quarter to 1", etc, one might wish to expand the time window another minute or two (as far as 12:50), etc.
What I'm getting at, is not that we should now think of these events as occuring at 12:50 rather than at 12:45, but that we should think of a full "time window", where the events could have occurred anywhere between time x and y.
And it seems to me, that it isn't at all difficult, to suggest that the events witnessed by Scwartz may have occurred closer to Diemshutz's arrival than is at first apparent.
I am not saying they did occur at any specific time; only that the times which seem worth considering do include times that place Schwartz's sighting very close to the time Diemshutz arrives with his pony.
Allow for some error of time on Diemshutz part as well (allowing his arrival to be a minute or two before 1, to be explained why shortly), then it becomes even easier to have the time windows overlap.
Of course, they can't really have overlapped, because clearly Diemshutz didn't see the Schwartz event, so there was at least a minute between them. But if the windows overlap, that indicates that "Coltus Interruptus" is a valid theory (fits with the evidence). If the time windows cannot be shown to overlap through reasonable considerations, then it would appear Stride's killer left before the pony arrived, and so he left without intending to mutilate Stride, and so it's unlikely she's a Ripper victim.
But, showing the acceptable time windows do overlap, does not mean Stride's killer "was JtR", only that if he was JtR, well, he was probably interrupted (the usual story).
Anyway, why might Diemshutz's time of finding the body at 1:00 am be a minute or two later than when he entered the yard?
He reports that at first he thought the woman was just drunk in the alley. According to the A-Z, he didn't realise the woman's throat was cut until after he returned with others from the club. That means, when he goes into the club, he would have first taken the time to tie up his pony and cart, and he's in no rush. At this point, he doesn't realise there has even been a murder; and perhaps there hadn't! What if Stride's throat wasn't cut until after Diemshutz went inside? Now that's something to ponder.
Anyay, Diemshutz's arrival of 1:00 was his estimate from the tobacconist clock on Commercial road (according to the A-Z). That's enough of a distance to travel that he may be off a few minutes. Also, most of the times we have come from different clocks, none of which may read the same time at the same time (one runs fast, another slow, etc). So, if Diemshutz arrived at 12:55, ties up his pony, goes in to check on his wife, chats to a few people about what he thinks is a drunk women in the ally, they then go check her and find her throat cut, then run off to find the police. What we have is Diemshutz arriving very soon after Schwartz leaving, and adding a bit of delay before going to search for the police.
Obviously, by similar logic, one can push the events further apart in time as well. That, however, doesn't negate the fact that Schwartz's sighting and Diemshutz's arrival could have been much closer in time than it generally appears by just looking at the listed times.
Again, it's important to remember, just because the time windows we must consider might overlap doesn't mean we can conclusively say the events happened at any particular time. But we also cannot say they didnot happen at any particular point within the time window of oppertunity.
It seems to me, the time window of oppertunity incudes times that allow for Stride to be killed by Mr. BS very soon after Schwartz leaves and just before Diemshutz arrives. Likewise, Mr. BS may have killed Stride and left well before Diemshutz arrives. And finally, time window also allows for Mr. BS to have left, and someone else to come along and kill Stride (though there's no evidence of this 2nd person).
And, as always, that means I'm no closer to figuring out if Stride was or was not a Ripper victim.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3167
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff.
Wow, that was a long one! 
Good and interesting post; I have been thinking along the same lines myself. The only problem here is Mrs Mortimer (who certainly can't have been outside very long if the Schwartz incident appeared later than 12:45 and she missed it), but as others have said here have pointed out as well -- and quite correctly so -- we don't know how valid and reliable that is.
Your thoughts here may fit the medical evidence better as well, regarding the streaming blood etc.
Interesting.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 502
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi again Cludgy,
Let me start by saying that I do not claim that the men seen in Stride’s company were one and the same. They could have been different men and they could just as well have been one and the same.
As witness descriptions are not all that reliable generally speaking, I do not attach much value to them, unless they include one or more distinguishable features. That’s why I remain unconvinced that 2 of the sightings involved different men.
John Gardner and J. Best saw a respectably dressed man hugging and kissing a woman who had a flower pinned to her jacket. The duo seems to have gone to the mortuary on Sunday to see if the deceased was the woman they had seen and it was.
William Marshall watched a decently dressed man in the company of a woman. He was kissing her and eventually passed Marshall with his arm around her shoulder. Neither of them seemed to be the worse for drink. The next day he was taken to the mortuary and identified the deceased as the woman he had seen.
PC Smith passed a man of respectable appearance and a woman with a flower in her jacket standing talking together. Both the man and the woman appeared to be sober. When he later saw the body of the dead woman in the yard he immediately recognised her as the woman he’d seen about half an hour before.
And of course, there was James Brown, who witnessed a couple standing against the Board School in Fairclough Street, facing each other. The spot where the couple was standing was quite dark. His description of the man rather vague and he was not very clear about the woman either. At least one version of the inquest testimony says that he was not completely certain that it was Stride that he saw.
Whatever may be said about these testimonies, none of them imply that Stride was actually out soliciting that night.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 592
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Somewhere on the site I posted quite a lengthy post concerning the time required for blood clotting. And, in that post I think I suggested that the "throat cutting" and Diemshutz's arrival occuring at about the same time could be seen to fit with the blood clotting testimony gathered from various statements. It also, as I recall, allowed for those events to be separated by enough time for one to suggest that Diemshutz arrived well after Stride's killer had left.
And, earlier than that, I recall I posted a comparison between Stride's throat wound and Eddowes' throat wound. To me, these two wounds seem very similar to each other, although both are quite different from the near decapitation attempts made on both Nichols and Chapman. The implications, of course, are that the mutilations link Eddowes to Nichols and Chapman, and if the throat wounds link Stride to Eddowes, that goes for "inclusion." The problem is, of course, is that I'm in now way qualified to really judge the similarity between the wounds. It could be that both Stride and Eddowes' throat wounds are so typical of what you get when someone succesfully commits murder by cutting someone's throat, that comparing any two such wounds will show these kinds of similarities. I just don't know. But, if that were the case, then the similarities mean nothing. If it's not the case, the similarities may tip the balance in favour of Stride as a Ripper victim.
Importantly, though, is that so far there is nothing to preclude either line of reasoning. Stride either was, or was not, a Ripper victim. The evidence we have allows for both possibilities; not surprising because between the two we've covered everything! Which of course, means we're at a fork in the logical road, with nothing to tell us which way to go.
As for Mrs. Mortimer, if the Schwartz sighting and Diemshutz's arrival actually did occur very close in time to each other, and we know she didn't see Diemshutz, then it's not a big stretch to imagin why she didn't see the Schwartz event either. She had gone back inside. She may have only just missed all the excitement. When she was outside, and for how long, are all based upon her testimony. Since she also suggests she went inside, and shortly after heard Diemshutz arrive, let's say shortly refers to something like 3-5 minutes (just to put some numbers on it). So, let's say at the point in time she goes inside, Schwartz is just starting down Berner street. That means she misses him, Schwartz would arrive to see Mr. BS assault Stride about 2 minutes later, he runs off, and say a minute later Diemshutz arrives, and Stride is being killed, etc.
Obviously, I'm presenting here only an extreme case of where all these events are presented very close together in time. That's the most difficult one. Personally, I think we always just have to remember that any testitfied times are going to be inaccurate and they should be viewed with some "error" associated with it.
Given we know she didn't see any of the events, all we know for sure is that the events don't seem to have occurred when she was outside. If she was outside from 12:35 to 12:45, not a big problem. Schwartz may only have been entering Berner Street when she went inside.
If we could be certain of the times she was outside, that would obviously rule out a section of time for any of the events. But, I really think all testified times have to be viewed with caution. Watches were not common, so most times are simply estimates.
Ok, here's a little test. Check what time it is right now. Without looking at your clock again, go stand and look outside your window (or on your street, or in a corner, whatever), until you're pretty sure it's been 10 minutes. Go back in and check the time on your clock. How far out were you? Given that Mrs. Mortimer may not have had a clock to verify her times, and even if she did why would she time herself in the first place, how would she know her estimation of time was wrong?
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3168
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Well, as I recall, Mrs Mortimer said she heard Diemschutz arrive shortly after she went inside, so that suggests -- regardless of how long she stood in the doorway -- that her being outside just prior to Diemchutz came in on Berner Street.
I therefore think it's most likely -- if she not was a false witness -- that she went outside after the Schwarzt incident and then went inside before Diemschutz arrived. Based on that, she may have been standing in the doorway anything from 5 to 15 minutes.
I don't think she went inside before the Schwartz incident; regardless of clocks and time estimates, the key to the whole thing is her statement about her hearing Diemchutz's cart arrive just shortly after she had went inside. Therefore her time estimates regarding the clock is not relevant -- Diemschutz is probably her best indicator here rather than the clock.
As for your suggestion, that she may have been outside before the murder, I think the time schedule seems bit tight for that, actually, and doesen't fit in with other things she experienced (or rather DIDN'T experience). The street was apparently empty when she went inside since she didn't see anyone, and that Schwartz, Mr Broad Shoulders, Pipeman would be able to appear in this little frame of time before Diemscutz arriving (5--10 minutes), not to mention a second person as the killer (as some suggests), and the incident occur seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Besides, I think she would heard something of it, considering she said she could hear the footsteps of a policeman walking the beat, which indicates she could hear rather detailed and soft sounds and that the street didn't contain any noise at this time. So apparently the street was rather quiet. I think she would have heard Stride and MR Broad Shoulders arguing and the latter shouting "Lipski". And maybe even Schwartz running.
So therefore my interpretation must be -- that is, if she was telling the truth -- that she stood outside between the Schwartz incident/the murder and Diemschutz arriving, not before. But of course, your thoughts presents a good explanation to the medical evidence (although I am not an expert on blood) -- it is not impossible and I am not prepared to rule it out completely.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 503
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Hi Scotty,
“It is a commonly held belief by many here on the boards that the prostitute would have taken her client to a spot where their business could be completed. If this had been the approach in the Stride case then the number of people in the vicinity becomes far less important than some are stating on this thread in my opinion."
The Ripper may still have been able to decide not to kill in a spot he didn’t like. And perhaps the Ripper knew the area well enough to be able to avoid the neighbourhoods that included the ‘bad’ spots in the first place.
"Just to note Frank, you make a lot of mileage from how many people were in the club."
I don’t know if I’m making a lot of mileage from that. That surely isn’t my objective. I think all I’m doing is reproducing well recorded case evidence. And the evidence regarding the people inside the club coupled with the evidence of the people who where outside shortly before the murder – who are really my main concern – just makes me think and wonder (by this I don't mean that you or anyone else with a different view doesn't think, mind you  ).
With regard to the subject at hand Mary Jane Kelly’s murder was obviously significantly different from the rest in that it was committed indoors. There was clearly much less chance of someone walking into the scene at any time in Kelly’s case. But regardless of this, the evidence tells us that not that many people seem to have been outside in Dorset Street between 1:30 and at least about 3 am. Besides possibly Kelly herself and the man seen by Hutchinson, there was Elisabeth Prater, perhaps McCarthy in his shop, Hutchinson, there was Sarah Lewis, a couple Sarah saw and Mary Ann Cox. So, this may exactly have been the hours of lull you’re referring to.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 504
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:21 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"At least I am glad that AP Wolf and Frank seem to share some of my opinions in this, which do not make it a fluke on my own part altogether."
Just before I'm off to bed, much too late I might add: I'm with ya here!
Sleep well,
Frank 
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 505
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Glenn & Jeff,
Well, just another quick one before I really hit the sack.
Mortimer's account was more or less corroborated by Leon Goldstein's calling at Leman Street police station, where he stated "that he was the man that passed down Berner Street with a black bag at that hour, that the bag contained empty cigarette boxes & that he had left a coffee house in Spectacle Alley a short time before."
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 593
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
It's entirely possible that she was outside between the Schwartz event and Diemshutz's arrival. If that were the case, then obviously the two events occurred after a fair bit of time has passed.
It just seems that it's also entirely possible that she went inside before the Schwartz event. She hears someone's footsteps, but where was she inside when this happened? To hear something like that, I would think she's near an open window. Now, how long does she stay there? How much can she hear when she's not next to this window, or in the same room as the window? I don't know, and these are obviously unanswerable questions.
The whole Schwartz event is probably only convering, what, 15 to 20 seconds? See a fellow walk up to someone, they argue, start to cross the street, the fellow throws the women to the ground, turns and shouts, and Schwartz runs. The only real bit she's likely to hear would be the shouting (isn't her house up the street a bit?), and even that would depend upon the acoustics. etc.
Since I can't answer any of the obvious questions that I'm implying above, all I can do is wonder if it's possible that Mrs. Mortimer could be inside and not hear the events? She may have heard Diemshutz as his cart went passed her house, not when it entered the yard itself (so a bit earlier than Diemshutz's arrival). Shouting in the street was probably common place enough that she may have heard it, but not noticed it (a bit difference), etc.
Too many questions, and not enough answers. But, I would agree with you that if she went inside before the Schwartz event, then the Schwartz siting and Diemshutz's arrival occurred very close together in time. And if that's the case, then it fits the interruption theory. Also, it seems to fit with the blood clotting evidence (but as I've said in that post, the blood clotting evidence may also fit with a longer delay).
I guess what I'm getting at is that the interruption theory, so far, cannot be ruled out. However, by the same evidence, we also cannot rule out a "non-interruption" theory either.
I suppose, though, that given the required closeness in time for the interruption theory, in this case it makes Mr. BS Stride's killer. And his description is not at odds with Lawende's description of the man seen with Eddowes. Not that this proves much, as we both know the descriptions are so general they could be two different people or be the same person. At least, however, they could be the same person. If those descriptions were definately of different people, it would basically break the link between Stride and Eddowes. But once again, the data works both ways.
It always seems to work both ways with Stride. If one starts from the premise that she was a JtR victim, one cannot find any real inconsistencies in the data. One can interpret the evidence in a logical manner without finding any contradictions. But, start from the polar opposite, and again, there are no real inconsistencies with that view in the data either.
And what this tells us is that the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion. And so, my opinion flips back and forth all the time.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 594
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:42 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
That's right! I had forgotten about "black bag man". Do you know what time he claimed to have walked by? Do we know where the coffee house was exactly? I'm thinking of my maps again.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 506
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Hey there Jeff,
Unfortunately, it's not clear when 'exactly' he walked by. Swanson's report of 19 October reads: "about 1 a.m. 30th Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street Commercial Road, called at Leman St., etc."
This would imply that he walked into the police station when Stride's body had just been discovered, which doesn't make sense. He seems to have come forward after Mrs. Mortimer's statement had appeared in the papers. So, this "1 a.m. 30th" may have been the time that he walked through Berner Street, which must then have been just before Mortimer went back inside. That's the best I can do for now.
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 595
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
Thanks for that. Something is strange about the 1 am on the 30th, but I'll go with your suggestion that's the approximate time he walked by.
Once again, however, we're dealing with an approximated time. So, if Mrs. Mortimer saw him (and we know she did), and if she goes in before the Schwartz siting, then Leon must have passed by first.
But, since he would have no reason to take note of the time he passed by that particular location until after he reads about himself in the paper, his estimated time can hardly be considered reliable. If he's out by even 10 to 15 minutes, then he may have passed somewhere around 12:45-12:50. And if Mrs. Mortimer goes in just after he passes, and Diemshutz shows up 10 - 15 minutes later, that's not really a long time, and depending upon what she was doing at the time, may have seemed quite shortly afterwards. As I'm sure we all know, if you're just standing around outside, and not much is happening, a few minutes may seem longer, but if you're doing something (like cleaning up, or reading, or whatever), the same amount of real time can seem shorter. This is always a problem with indefinate statements like "A short while" or "A little while", "A long time later", is that they only tell us how much time was perceived to have passed, and that depends upon what the person was doing as well as the fact that what is a short time to one person could seem a long time to another.
Anyway, with all these sources of variation with respect to time estimations, we're stuck with the following problem.
If Mr. BS was JtR, then that would mean something like this happened:
1) Mrs. Mortimer goes outside
2) Leon walks by
3) Mrs. Mortimer goes inside
4) Schwartz sees Mr BS assault Stride and runs off
5) Pipe man leaves, following or chasing Schwartz
6) Mr. BS gets Stride into the alley (while keeping her silent, perhaps while he strangles Stride.
7) Diemshutz shows up
8) Either just as Diemshutz shows up, Mr. BS cuts Stride's throat, or as an interesting possibility, Mr. BS hides near the gate and Diemshutz is passed him on his cart.
9) Diemshutz notices Stride, but thinks she's drunk
10) Diemshutz takes care of his pony and cart, and goes in to check on his wife
11) If Mr. BS has not already cut Stride's throat, he does so now and leaves. If he had cut her throat before Diemshutz checked out stride, then Mr. BS has probably already left the scene (somewhere around step 8).
12) Diemshutz and friends come out of the club, and find Stride has been murdered and go looking for the police
13) Mr. BS is on his way to where he eventually meets up with, and murders Eddowes.
and so on.
Now, this series is not contradicted by the blood clotting evidence, which seems to suggest that Stride's throat was cut very near the time she's checked out by Diemshutz and friends.
The throat wounds are similar between Stride and Eddowes.
The eye-witness descriptions of Mr. BS and Lawende's man are not at odds with each other.
The time line given for the events listed correspond to statements from relevent parties, within the limits of reliability of the stated times.
Meaning, of course, that so far nothing in the data suggests this could not have happened.
But that, however, is a far cry from meaning it must have happened this way. Because the alternative:
1) Schwartz sees Mr. BS assault Stride, and runs off at 12:45
2) Mr. BS kills Stride and flees 12:46
3) Mrs Mortimer comes outside at 12:47
4) Leon walks by sometime later, before 1:00 am
5) Mrs Mortimer goes inside around 12:57
6) Diemshutz shows up at 1:00
7) Checks Stride and immediately goes inside
and so on
is also
1) not contradicted by the blood clotting evidence
2) consistent with the time lines given by people, within acceptable limits of time estimations
3) the similarity of witness descriptions is not specific enough to rule out the descriptions being two different people
4) the similarity of the throat wounds that I see may be nothing more than the fact that this is what a murderous throat cut looks like; the similarities are not indicative of a similar hand at work
And, obviously, I suppose one could also list things like Mr. BS does not kill Stride, but someone else does. But I hope I've made my point, which is simply that the evidence we have to work with does not appear sufficient to determine exactly when Stride was killed, or even the exact sequence of events. But, if Mr. BS was JtR, I think the only sequence that fits is the first presented. Nothing in the evidence, as of yet, rules out sequence 1, and therefore it remains a viable possibility that Mr. BS was JtR. So, if Mr. BS was JtR, sequence 1 seems to be what happened unless a reasonable argument could be made as to why JtR would leave Stride without attempting to mutilate her. Of course, if Mr. BS was not JtR, then something like sequence 1 or 2 could have happened, or even I suppose the unpresented "sequence 3".
- Jeff
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 290
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
There were some really good points there, which made me think about things again from a different perspective. I'm still torn about whether she was a victim of JtR though.
I have to say that I am rather more convinced that Liz was killed by someone other than JtR, maybe Kidney or a disgruntled punter.
Glenn and Frank have already given most of the reasons that make me lean towards a domestic killing. What they have presented seems to be quite logical and does ring true with me.
But there was something else that really makes me feel that it wasn't JtR and I have to say up front that this doesn't have any real evidence to back it up, it just seems more logical than any other theory.
Having lived, breathed and slept Dutfield's yard in minute detail, whilst I was doing the reconstruction, one thing struck me. I think I'm correct in saying that the general concensus is that JtR's motivation was to kill the victim as quickly and noiselessly as possible and then get down to his real need, the mutilation of the body.
If this is the case, then why on earth would he attack Liz at the front of the yard in full view of everyone, in what could only be described as a clumsy, inept assault, when just a few yards further back he had a perfectly deserted and dark yard, which would have provided him with all the cover he needed to kill and mutilate her to his hearts content with very little chance of anyone disturbing him for at least some minutes?
Dutfield's Yard is L shaped, and at the back there would have been loads of places where he would have been relatively undisturbed and even empty buildings I seem to recall, so why did he do it in the entranceway?
I suppose the argument would be that he was trying to get her to go further back into the yard with him, but she resisted and that's why he pushed her down and decided to kill her there, but that does not make sense to me.
According to Schwartz's testimony they were arguing with each other and then Mr BS 'turned her around' to push her to the ground. Why did he have to turn her around, if she was facing him? Most people when they argue face each other.........
The obvious answer was that she had turned her back on him and was walking away from him. This could have been away along the street, or it could have been that she was going into Dutfield's Yard for some reason. It had to have been one or the other.
Now it is quite possible that she was walking away from him along the street, except for one thing. Her body was found 9 feet inside the yard, with cachous lying in her hand. If Mr BS had dragged her into the yard that 9 feet directly following that assault, I cannot for one moment imagine that she would have had the cachous still in her hand when she died. The same is true if she was walking away from him along the street.
If however, Mr BS actually appeared to have left and Liz wanted to straighten herself out before she went back back onto the streets, she could well have gone into the loos in Dutfields yard, to get herself organised and straighten her hair, taken out the cachous and was walking back to the gate when she was attacked.
The fact is that she did have cachous in her hand and that is at least some evidence that she was settling herself down after the attack.
Then Mr BS, still really ticked off, decides that the matter is not over and goes back to finish the argument. He might well have been hanging about at the entrance of the yard for her to come out, which is not stretching possibilities too far.
Unfortunately he finished the argument with a knife. It seems to be a much more likely scenario that anything else as far as I can see.
The chances of an assault by another person within the space of a few minutes is stretching credibility to it's limit in my opinion. Yes of course it could have happened. JtR could have been hanging around and spotted the incident and felt it was a perfect opporunity for a kill. If that was the case though, why did he kill her at the front of the yard and not lure her further back inside?
He had managed to encourage Polly, Annie and Catharine into relatively deserted places, why would he suddenly fail to do so with Liz?
He only had to take her a further back into the yard........
I have to say on balance, it does seem more likely that Mr BS was a disgruntled client or possibly a boyfriend that had a personal issue with her.
Just my 2 pennerth for what it's worth
Jane
xxxxxxxx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3170
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Jane,
I agree with every word of it.
Some real good thinking and analysing there, and much of it corroborates splendidly with the scenarios I see in the Stride case. This is what I believe most likely happened. However, no explanation will be good enough for those who are more or less convinced of that it was a Ripper killing.
As you say, Jane, there are very few evidence to back it all up, but on the other hand that goes for the other opposing scenarios as well.
I have nothing more to add, really. Splendid post.
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: 596
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I can see nothing in your scenerio that would not fit with the evidence. It's one that I would include as a "variation" on scenerio 3. I had "scenerio 3" as Mr. BS leaves, and someone else kills Stride. I didn't list it because, although possible, there is nothing in the evidence that really suggests this new person.
However, I forgot the idea of Mr. BS leaving and comming back. That's much the same idea as a new person assaulting Stride a 2nd time, the only difference is that it's "the same person assaulting Stride a 2nd time", which I agree makes the notion much more plausible.
Also, if Mr. BS is not JtR, then Kidney would be the top of the suspect list, and Stride's murder would be a domestic killing.
As for Mr. BS attacking Stride in full view of everyone, that really depends on what Mr. BS was aware of at the time. Schwartz was walking behind Mr. BS, did Mr. BS know Schwartz was there? It's easy to understand how he might have been, but it's just as easy to see how he might not have known Schwartz was behind him. Pipe man is reported in one of Schwartz's statement to come out of a building (although in that report I think Pipe man is holding a knife rather than a pipe?). But, if he did emerge onto the scene after the assault started, Mr. BS could not have known he was there when he started his assault. In other words, despite the fact that Mr. BS did start his assault on Stride in full view of Schwartz at least, Mr. BS may have thought he was attacking Stride with no-one to see him.
Now, if that's the case, his calling out Lipski to Schwartz may be in part due to his surprise at seeing Schwartz because he thought he was alone.
As for the cachous, I still can't get rid of the idea that Stride was not holding them, but simply kept them tucked up her sleeve, and at some point, when she was put to the ground or while on the ground, the cachous came out of her sleeve and fell into her hand. And, if that happened, we don't need to include some sort of delay between Mr. BS's initial assault and Stride's death in order to account for the cachous.
Anyway, as I've said, the data we have fits with most of the presented options that people are debating. Stride may have been killed by JtR, and she may not have. The timing of events are either very close together, or they are separated in time. The wounds are similiar in an informative manner, or only coincedentally. The cachous were up her sleeve, or they were not.
And so on.
Basically, what I'm most interested in is trying to figure out what did actually happen during these crimes. I really think that trying to solve who did it is a bit premature if we cannot even agree on what it was.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 597
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I know what you mean, I can't decide if Stride was or was not a ripper victim. At the moment, the evidence still "allows" her to be, but it also "allows" her not to be. Hmmm, I'll stop now before a very bad use of Shakespear inserts itself into this post!
- Jeff |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 187
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 1:28 am: |
|
Hi all,
Just to stir things up, Jane you stated: "The chances of an assault by another person within the space of a few minutes is stretching credibility to it's limit in my opinion." I appreciate straight off that you do say that it's not certain just unlikely in your opinion. I also will note that others have stated similar comments earlier on this thread.
I thought the following story might be useful, it's a case I quote often and it seems to have so many great elements in it and the part I want to illustrate today is coincidence. (I am telling this story from memory so please forgive me if details are a little sketchy, the salient points are correct.)
In the late 50's in Perth WA a young man named John Button had his girlfriend Rosemary over to his house because his mum and dad had gone out. The two of them ended up having an arguement and she stormed out. He followed her outside to try and make the peace but she was adamant that she was going to walk home and headed off down the street. He jumped in his car and followed her. When he drew along side her he pleaded with her to at least let him drive her home. She refused and continued on her way. John decided he would give her time to cool off before following her again so he pulled over to the side of the road and lit a cigarette. He watched her walk down the street and under the railway overpass. She turned left and was out of sight. After a few minutes he finished his cigarette and started the car, he followed her under the subway intending to try to make up with her. He turned left and not far down the street saw Rosemary lying on the side of the road. He got out of the car and examined Rosemary who was clearly badly injured and unconscious, realising something bad had happened he picked her up and carried her to the car placing her in the back seat. For some reason he carried Rosemary around the front of the car to the door on the far side and in doing so some of her blood ended up on the bonnet of the car. Unfortunately for John he had also had a minor accident in the car some weeks earlier and therefore some elements on the front of the car were still dented and broken. He took his girlfriend to the house of a local doctor who knew both John and Rosemary. When the doctor came outside he noticed the damage and blood on the front of the car. After he examined Rosemary it was clear to him that she had probably been hit by a motor vehicle. He called for an ambulance and then he called the police. John was arrested, the evidence was clear. The two had had an arguement she had walked out, he followed in the car and ended up running her down with it. Later Rosemary died in hospital, John was convicted of murder, was initially sentenced to death, his sentence was later reduced to life.
Several years later the actual killer was caught. He was never charged with the murder of Rosemary although he confessed to it, he was later hanged for his crimes. He was a killer with a surprisingly varied MO, nevertheless he had stolen cars and run down other random pedestrians with them on four other occasions. The coincidence is this. In the few small minutes when John sat in his car smoking and Rosemary was out of sight, the real killer spotted her and ran her over. The car the killer used was a similar make and model to John's. The car the killer used had a registration plate which had only two different letters or numbers from John's. (eg: John's car XPD 454, killer's XDD 754) This all became important as three young men in another car witnessed a car speeding from the scene and later agreed it was probably John's car they had seen. Couple this with the fact that if John's car had no damage to the front from the earlier accident or no blood on the bonnet, he never would have been considered as a suspect. A couple of years ago after fighting for the better part of 40 years John finally had his conviction quashed.
The chances of all of these events happening exactly as they did on that night would be discounted by all of you who discount coincidence in the murder of Stride. Police saw clear evidence of a domestic dispute turned violent and acted accordingly. They were even so negligent as to discount that John had reported to them the earlier accident which had caused the damage to the front of his car. Before you all start in, yes it is only one example, but it did happen and it illustrates that we should not be too quick to discount possibilities because they seem unlikely.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."
Mark Twain.
Scotty.
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 2:28 am: |
|
I realise you are making a point aboutcoincidence, Scott, but I think there is a prime difference to the Stride killing.
Rosemary LEFT her boyfriend and walked on - she effectively became one more pedestrian. She had left the immediate area of the disagreement.
Stride was still where she had had the row (I think it likely it was with kidney) when she was struck down. Secondly this was in a public place - hardly the site of choice for an unpremeditated assault, unless it was a crime of passion. If Stride was attacked TWICE in a few minutes, then I think it was probably by the same person.
NOW, had she walked away from the Club and Berners St and gone off to Commercial Rd, and THEN been found murdered, I would have no problem at all with two men, the second her killer, and a coincidence that the same woman suffered two separate assaults in one night.
Have I made the clear difference which I perceive, plain?
Phil |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 188
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
I see your point but I just don't understand why it is relevant.
My point was regarding coincidences and that they do happen. Your post above instantly brings up reasons why you think Stride was not likely to be attacked twice in the space of 15 minutes by two seperate people in the same location. In other words you discount coincidence. I can't state that coincidence definately happened in the case of Stride. Conversely, your arguement above cannot rule out that a coinicidence may have occured.
The site I stated above was a very public location in the late 50's, so what? I'm not sure why you brought that point up.
So you think it more likely that Stride could have been attacked by 2 different people in 15 minutes as long as it was not in the same location? Any statistician will tell you that in fact the odds are at least the same for both scenarios (mutually exclusive) if not in favour of her being attacked close to where the first assault took place. (This works of course on the assumption that there were two seperate attacks.) You point out that Rosemary had left her boyfriend and walked on as though this seperates the two cases when in fact it brings them closer together. If BS only assaulted Liz and then left surely by your logic Liz is then alone, does it really matter whether she left or he did? If the arguement between Liz and BS had happened in a private dwelling I might agree with you, but not when it happened out on the street.
Regardless, your post above tries to argue against coincidence, which is fine if you want to. I have used evidence to back up that coincidences do occur and cannot be discounted. That is irrefutable fact.
Scotty.
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 291
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
Hi Scotty,
Of course there are coincedences, I could recount even more startling ones than the story you quoted, and that is why I simply say that for Liz to have been attacked by 2 men within 15 minutes in the same spot is stretching credibility to its limit. That's surely what coincedence is............I didn't say that it was impossible, of course it is possible, which is why I don't totally discount Liz as a victim of JtR. I said that I felt that it raised a serious question mark, that's all.
Obviously some coincedences are more incredible than others, for instance, Liz gets attacked by 2 men within 15 minutes, then the man who killed her goes off and kills another prostitute just a short distance away in a very tight time frame. Would that be more or less credible?
No-one is trying to argue against coincedence, I am personally not certain one way or the other if Liz was a victim of JtR, I just feel that it is rather more likely that she was killed by someone in a domestic arguement.
And just to bring the point I raised before up, if it was JtR that killed her, why didn't he take her further back into the yard to do it?
Big grin for being cheeky,
Jane
xxxxxxx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3177
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
Hi Scotty,
Well, it is an interesting story, and it do contain a lot of startling coincides. True.
However, as you may note, John Button didn't attack or assault the victim in a violent manner -- he only followed her.
What we are dealing with here is the possibility of Stride being attacked twice (and killed the second time) in a time frame of ten to fifteen minutes by different individuals (although I realise that you probably just want to make a point about coincidences as a whole). Most researchers hold this for less likely, and I agree with them. I won't state -- like Jane also points out -- that it is impossible, but a rather microscopical one.
Then there also is a problem with contradiction here. You can on one hand accept the possibility that Stride might have been attacked by two individuals in this short time, but then you on the other hand are willing to discount the coincidence that a domestic or ordinary client-related killing could occur 45 minutes before a Ripper murder.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 25, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:38 pm: |
|
Hi.
I am still new to these boards, so please bear wtih me. Does anyone have a description for Michael Kidney? Also, Eddowes was discovered 45 minutes later. Well, if both were killed my JtR, wouldn't he be covered in blood? How would he be able to get Catherine to go with him? Even if he wasn't necessarily covered in blood, wouldn't his hands be bloody?
Sandy |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 294
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
I personally haven't seen a picture or description of Kidney, and I can't recall hearing of one, but I'm sure someone out there will know if there is one.
As to the blood issue, as far as I understand it (and I confess, I'm no expert) if a person is dead when their throat is cut, there is very little blood relatively speaking as the heart in not pumping. This would be the case if a victim was strangled. Liz's killer could easily escape getting blood on them, and especially so if there were wearing dark clothes which would not show the blood. It is very possible for Liz's killer to have had blood free clothing after her murder. His hands need not even be bloody, or easily wiped.
I would recommend that you read back over the rest of this thread if you have time as it will give you a good insight into how Liz's murder is viewed in relation to Catharine Eddowes.
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxxxx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3180
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Here is a contemporary sketch of Michael Kidney, reproduced in Jack the Ripper A-Z. (The woman is Stride's landlady Elizabeth Tanner.)
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Jane,
I was just wondering if there was a chance that JtR would have gotten some blood on him if he had cut her throat from behind. Also, if JtR had indeed killed both Stride and Eddowes, wouldn't there have been something in his manner that may have made Catherine a bit suspicious of him? Perhaps I am not getting my words out right. I'll start over. JtR kills Stride, yet he is unable to continue with his bloodlust. He goes of, unsated. The kill has pumped his adrenaline(as the possible interuption probably had as well), and he is searching for another victim, someone that he can use to fulfill the need that he has to completely destroy. If the same person killed both women, is it really possible that he would appear calm enough in his manner to not alert Catherine that something was strange? Am I making any sense?
Sandy |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3181
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Sandy,
A killer's psychological pattern in certain situations is of course hard to predict and we can never say for sure, but it is certainly a good point and makes sense.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for the sketch!This is very helpful.
Sandy |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3183
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Thanks. You're welcome, Sandy.
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 Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
It seems that certain individuals have sought to find animosity concerning my playfulness with Mr. Andersson. Nothing can be further from the truth. It is nothing more than a kind of cheerfulness between fellows of Swedish extraction. When I refer to him as "Lipski" I do it with all good and humorous intention, and with respect.
David
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Glenn sorry to see you perceive a personal attack which my post is not. by saying "drum roll please" I'm simply saying "here we go again" knowing we are about to head in a circle like we always do with each of use ending up back where we started. Its also my way of saying that its really not that shocking for a killer who was previously unseen and unheard to be seen and heard in another instance. Now I have already stated I personally feel there is a group of "outsmarters" here who never accept the obvious explanations and I have likewise expressed my belief that there are those who deep down are so enamored with the myth and mystic surrounding our villain that they can't accept that he could have acted much like other serial killers HAVE acted...at times totally in control and at times out of control. So my above post is really just me reinforcing my already stated views. Its nothing new and should not bother you one bit. Look, I don't call people names and I even try go the extra mile by saying things I like about posters that I take issue with. But what am I supposed to do when confronted with a statement like "He was elusive, because he was never seen in action -- that is not romanticism; that is facts", let it go unchallenged? You wouldn't. Your unacceptance of Mr. BS behavior shows that you are simply ignoring the many many many examples we have throughout history of killers who have changed MO's, had victims who fought back, been forced to change their plans on the fly etc. And you know this. So I can only conclude that subconsciously you are giving Jack preferential treatment...treatment you probably would not afford to a killer without a spooky name in a case that had not garnered so much attention. And as for your love of calling Mr. BS clumsy please consider this. If Stride did suspect something and Mr. BS was still able to subdue her by calming or terrifying her into submission (along with making at least one witness feel the need to run for his very life) then I see nothing clumsy about his behavior in this matter. Instead I see as you put it a "street-smart" killer who for whatever reason has been given lemons...and is through his street-smarts (think lack of clumsiness) is STILL able to make lemonade.
BTW Glenn Mr. BS didn't yell lipski...he yelled RIPSKI, so as to leave no doubt as to his identity. Ok im off to listen to some Judas Priest , The Ripper off their 1974 Sad Wings of Destiny album actually captures the creepy feeling I accociate with JTR and the london fog quite well. |
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Glenn sorry to see you perceive a personal attack which my post is not. by saying "drum roll please" I'm simply saying "here we go again" knowing we are about to head in a circle like we always do with each of use ending up back where we started. Its also my way of saying that its really not that shocking for a killer who was previously unseen and unheard to be seen and heard in another instance. Now I have already stated I personally feel there is a group of "outsmarters" here who never accept the obvious explanations and I have likewise expressed my belief that there are those who deep down are so enamored with the myth and mystic surrounding our villain that they can't accept that he could have acted much like other serial killers HAVE acted...at times totally in control and at times out of control. So my above post is really just me reinforcing my already stated views. Its nothing new and should not bother you one bit. Look, I don't call people names and I even try go the extra mile by saying things I like about posters that I take issue with. But what am I supposed to do when confronted with a statement like "He was elusive, because he was never seen in action -- that is not romanticism; that is facts", let it go unchallenged? You wouldn't. Your unacceptance of Mr. BS behavior shows that you are simply ignoring the many many many examples we have throughout history of killers who have changed MO's, had victims who fought back, been forced to change their plans on the fly etc. And you know this. So I can only conclude that subconsciously you are giving Jack preferential treatment...treatment you probably would not afford to a killer without a spooky name in a case that had not garnered so much attention. And as for your love of calling Mr. BS clumsy please consider this. If Stride did suspect something and Mr. BS was still able to subdue her by calming or terrifying her into submission (along with making at least one witness feel the need to run for his very life) then I see nothing clumsy about his behavior in this matter. Instead I see as you put it a "street-smart" killer who for whatever reason has been given lemons...and is through his street-smarts (think lack of clumsiness) is STILL able to make lemonade.
BTW Glenn Mr. BS didn't yell lipski...he yelled RIPSKI, so as to leave no doubt as to his identity. Ok im off to listen to some Judas Priest , The Ripper off their 1974 Sad Wings of Destiny album actually captures the creepy feeling I accociate with JTR and the london fog quite well. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1511
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Couldn't Mr BS, if JtR, have wanted Liz to go with him to a quieter spot than Dutfield's Yard? If she stood her ground and caused him grief, unlike his two previous victims, the initial assault on Liz would at least make sense to me.
To add insult to injury, Mr BS found he had an audience and had to deal with Schwartz. Once pipeman was also out of the way, he had the opportunity to turn his attention back to Liz, regain control and take his annoyance at having lost it temporarily out on Liz by cutting her throat.
The whole dodgy situation, coupled with a risky venue not of his choosing, could have soured the moment for him and dictated that his mutilation plans must be postponed. Perhaps he had to feel in total control before he could perform his mutilation rituals.
I still think that jealous, drunken and abusive boyfriends don't often strike with the express intention to kill.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3188
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
extendedping,
Oh yes, the conduct of Mr BS clumsy to say the least, and certainly indiscrete. And certainly not "street smart".
This has nothing whatsoever to do with changing MO -- for some reason it has become popular to refer to this on almost every issue. What I do, is that I compare with the approach of the Ripper, who apparently had a rather fixed way of dealing with his victims, if we look at the three true accepted canonicals. The approach of Mr BS does not in any way fit into this. If we look at Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes it is clear that he subdued them fast and took them completely be surprise and not threw them around like Mr BS did. I am rather firm in my belief that what Schwartz saw on Berner Street was an amateur in action, not because the Ripper was especially clever, but because he wasn't really that awkward in his approach.
The Ripper clearly seems to be a guy who didn't like attention. In the Schwartz incident the perpetrator suddenly was faced with not one but TWO spectators. I don't believe for a minute that a person like the Ripper would try to intimidate, scare off or attack TWO persons (one maybe, but certainly not two), but would instead clear off and run away before even more people managed to get a good look at him. To try and take care of two witnesses (three if we count the woman) would be too risky for him and I believe he would have been too much of a coward to handle the situation in such a progressive manner -- he couldn't really know how those witnesses would react (what if they DIDN'T run away???); the other murders say enough about him in my view, to conclude that the conduct of Mr BS does not apply to this. The Ripper would in my mind most probable not draw to him any necessary attention, and therefore wouldn't put on such a scene but instead take off. It has nothing to do with cleverness -- just simple basic instinct of self-preservation (which Mr BS apparently lacked to a large degree). The conduct of Mr BS corroborates perfectly with an aggressive and irrational drunkard (believing you can knock down the entire nieighbourhood is a typical effect of this kind of state) -- and he certainly was as far from "street smart" as one could ever be.
As for him yelling Lipski or Ripski, that is not an established fact. That is still under debate and probably always will be. And I fail to see its relevancy anyway, the point is that he did shout across the street and risked drawing even more unnecessary attention to himself than he already have.
Just my two cents.
Caz,
"I still think that jealous, drunken and abusive boyfriends don't often strike with the express intention to kill."
I can't believe you actually wrote that. No offense, but do we live in the same reality world?
And -- by the way -- who said that the initial intention of Mr broad Shoulders really was to KILL in the first place? That is certainly not possible to establish with certainty.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 26, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 326
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Hey,extendedping
Just a friendly suggestion-- if you register your posts will show immediatly and you won't have to worry about the double posting.
Keep on with your discussion,gentlemen, I'm enjoying it.
Mags
|
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Hello everyone,
I'm not completely sure whether Stride was in fact a victim of JtR or not. One thing that I've been wondering about is this...doesn't seem like Berner St. was pretty busy that night? There was an event going on at the club with singing being heard from the street, people coming and going...does this seem like the type of situation that JtR would feel confident about be able to kill and mutilate (which is what he would have wanted to do) another prostitute?
Sandy |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 295
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
Oh dear have you opened a can of worms there. You are going to start a bun fight! Well actually you are going to get round 75 of that bun fight going I think!
Looking at your post, it seems you are simply asking why didn't JtR go for a safer alternative, when there were probably plenty of other options around? Is that right?
I'm not going to answer that for you, but I'm sure someone else will........ I'll just stand back and watch the buns flying...........
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxxxxx
You might want to put a tin hat on............ |
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Jane,
I am most certainly not trying to start any bun fight. I am simply asking a question that I feel is a legitimate one. I realize that I am new to these boards, so no I have not gone through all of these threads and/or archives, however I am doing what I can to catch up.
Sandy |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
