|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 974
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 12:49 pm: | 
|
I don't think it is the same at all, Stan.
We KNOW that the two groups of hijackers on 9/11 were related to each other and to El Qaeda.
We don't KNOW that the killers of Stride and Eddowes were the same. That is a long-standing assumption, nothing more.
Besides, I am certainly not arguing that it is certain that two separate killers were involved. Only that, for the reasons argued by AP, there the sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant us reassessing that assumption, and considering whether (for instance) Kidney might have been responsible.
Neither do I think that the coincidence is too strained, if one assumes a killer either thought he might hide under the shadow of AN ALREADY EXISTING serial killer, or sought to copy him.
The same would go for the Barnett as MJK's killer (but not JtR) hypothesis.
Phil
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 453
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Yes, it could be a copycat crime but you can make that same argument about Chapman and Eddowes. In fact, it would be a better copycat.
Stan
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 454
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
P.S.
And if we couldn't prove that the hijackers knew each other, I don't believe anyone would doubt it.
Stan |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Actually, I believe that during the Stride inquest, Wynne Baxter suggested Eddowes might have been the victim of a copycat.
Dave |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 455
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Perhaps we should start an "Eddowes was not a Ripper victim" thread.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 778
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Your comparison would only have held water if Stride had been mutilated too.
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Lol, I won't be starting it because I firmly believe Eddowes was a victim. I mention it here because it applies more directly to Stride, since her candidacy is more regularly argued. In arguing for Stride's inclusion, Baxter demonstrates what a gray area we're dealing with. For Baxter, the dividing line was skillful mutilations (his definition seems cloudy). I disagree with him, but Baxter was no fool nor stranger to death investigation. He mentions absence of motive as indicative of the crimes. My own belief is that, in the absence of motive, our conclusions can only be tentative.
In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful. (Daily Telegraph, October 23 1888).
Cheers,
Dave |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 456
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Dave; I'm a c5 guy so me neither.
Frank; If Stride was mutilated, I don't think this thread would be here.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4146
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Stan,
"Perhaps we should start an "Eddowes was not a Ripper victim" thread."
Hee hee... Now, even I think that is to take things too far, I admit.
What Baxter's so called comment demonstrates, in addition to what David said, is how puzzling these serial murders even appeared for the authorities and experts of the day - some of them highly academic and skilled people. They were certainly used to spectacular crimes - even involving mutilations - of domestic character, but in the light of a serial murderer performing seemingly motiveless crimes on the loose, they apparently got lost and didn't know how to cope with it at times, which is understandable.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"they apparently got lost and didn't know how to cope with it at times" And that is still the situation today, which is why many serial killers' careers stretch over years.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on October 16, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Dave O'
Baxter states an "absence of motive",which of course no one knew then or now.
But its hard to imagine that Eddowes would have been considered an imitation-Ripper murder even by the "Father of the Coroners".
What is a little puzzling is the mention by Baxter of the "skillful mutilation" done to Mrs. Nichols. I question that because there were no organs removed from her. [ unless of course the m.e. "missed" the removal...or that they know something we don't know and never let out...]
Do you see what I mean,Dave? Why consider it a "skillful mutilation",because thats all that was done...a mutilation. I've never heard that expression used before unless it involved organ removal or even making a design on a torso. I think "skillful" means the action of applying finesse in order to proceed beyond the initial cuts in this instance...How about you?
Stan Reid:
I agree sir. Had there been one mark to her torso,much,but not all, of the debate would be eliminated regarding her candidacy as a C5'er. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
Buddy, I don't know what he meant. I assume, like everything else, there are skilled and unskilled cuts. We also have to ask ourselves, since the Nichols depositions are lost, are we maybe missing some information? I don't know the answer, I'm just saying. Eddowes's mutilations show plenty of skill in my lay opinion.
We owe a lot to Wynne Baxter. I'm really glad to hear that Ripperologist has devoted some serious space to him, because he deserves it. Over a forty year career, he held thousands of inquests. Tens of thousands. However, and this takes nothing away from him, he wasn't the "Father of the Coroners". IMHO, that title goes to Thomas Wakley, West Middlesex Coroner 1839-1862 and founding editor of The Lancet. Inquests before Wakley and after Wakley? Two different things. He helped change the whole focus. He's the Churchill of coroners. He's also part of an upcoming article, and besides that, he's off-topic in this thread, so I'll leave it there.
About the lack of Stride's mutilations: sure, if she'd had them, we probably wouldn't argue so much about her. But she didn't have them. We can come up with some really good reasons for why she didn't, but they're still speculations.
Dave |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 978
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
"I'm a C5er!!" What's that mean?
That you accept the conventional wisdoms and never question anything??
Wake up folks! A claim like that is not a badge of pride, it's an indictment for complacency.
Personally, I'm happy to consider that there were five victims and no more, but I'm also open to other possibilities. Holding on to some principle laid down a centruy and more ago, is hardly being open-minded. Anyway - what does it achieve?/
Bewildered but open to ideas,
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4150
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Dave,
Wynne Baxter was also, as you may know, a major subject on the UK Conference, and it appears indeed as the was a more remarkable chap than what we sometimes gives him credit for.
As for his idea about Eddowes being a copycat, it is very hard to understand his views, since her body displayed every possible element connected with the Ripper's work on Chapman plus some additional features.
However, I'd say that just shows how inexperienced even the most skilled people were at the time with killers like these.
I am not sure of I agree with you that that the mutilations on Eddowes shows 'plenty of skill'. I personally can't see that at all, if we disregard the picking of the kidney. The PC said she looked like being ripped up like a pig in the market and there was a lot of hacking inside the body. I fail to see the skill in all of it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 779
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
"If Stride was mutilated, I don't think this thread would be here."
That's exactly why I said the comparison you've put forward isn't a good one.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 458
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Don't get your tighties in a twist, C-5 is my current position. Maybe it's C-0 or C-20; no one knows for sure and likely never will. It will take something really good though to trump contemparay thought, however, in my view.
Stan |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 459
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
It wasn't called C-5 but the concept goes back to at least to Macnaughton where he enunmerated the 'five and five only'. I meant Ripper contemporary.
Stan
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4154
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
I understood that, which is why I deleted my post. However, the concept as such was truly cemented by early Ripperologists in the 70s and 80s and we still live with it in academic sense, right or wrong.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 780
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn & all,
"As for his idea about Eddowes being a copycat, it is very hard to understand his views, since her body displayed every possible element connected with the Ripper's work on Chapman plus some additional features."
I think this was due to Dr. Phillips. He saw evidence of the killer having a medical background in Chapman's case, something that he clearly didn't see in the case of Eddowes - hence the idea, or rather Phillips' idea, that Eddowes might have been the result of a copycat killer.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 460
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Thanks for telling me that Glenn. I thought I was seeing things there for a second.
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4155
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Frank,
You could be right. Makes sense.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I hope you don't mind but I thought people discussing Stride might not appreciate my thoughts on Eddowes on this thread (I tend to go on about Eddowes).
If you're interested, http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4921&post=145522#POST145522 |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 461
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Coincidences are rather rare in crime history but a sextuple coincidence?
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4160
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Stan,
"Coincidences are rather rare in crime history ..."
Not really.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
If Eddowes hadn't been killed 45 minutes later, Stride probably never would have been discussed as a canonical victim anyway.
This is about as pointless as saying we wouldn't be having this debate if Stride had been mutilated.
Eddowes was killed 15 minutes' walk away and less than an hour later, and Stride wasn't mutilated.
The two, to my mind, go together like a horse and carriage, and need a better argument than Phil's 'Kidney probably killed Stride', or 'it could have been a coincidence', to pull them asunder.
Yes, two murderers could have been out on the streets on the same night, each encountering an East End prostitute after midnight, cutting her bloomin' throat with a sharp knife and leaving her penniless. But since we know that one of them was in the habit of doing just that, I just don't get the hostility shown to those of us who think it's as likely, or more likely - and a simpler hypothesis - that the serial killer cut both throats, the second a result of his failure to put his signature on the first.
While I appreciate the circular argument objection, I would nevertheless ask the Stride sceptics to consider what Jack's reaction would have been, had his mutilation plans for a victim indeed been aborted for any reason? Who can say he wouldn't have done what other violent but frustrated criminals have done in similar circumstances, and gone looking for satisfaction elsewhere?
As for [Baxter's] idea about Eddowes being a copycat, it is very hard to understand his views, since her body displayed every possible element connected with the Ripper's work on Chapman plus some additional features.
However, I'd say that just shows how inexperienced even the most skilled people were at the time with killers like these.
Er, I could more or less say the same about your own idea that MJK's killer may have been a copycat, or at least been influenced by Jack's crimes. Mary's body too displayed every possible element connected with the Ripper's work on Eddowes plus some additional features. If Baxter, controversially, felt that less skill was in evidence with Eddowes than with Chapman, one might reasonably argue that any skill possessed by MJK's killer went out the window that final night and waited in the dark with Hutch.
A descent into chaos, perhaps, at the same time as he reached his bloody peak?
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
Nice post Caz. I agree wholeheartedly.
Rob H |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Hey Caz - Another point to back you up: while Stride wasn't mutilated, she did fit the pattern of a killer trying to go for a quick kill that avoided bloodsplatters. PC Lamb said "she looked as if she had quietly been laid down" .
I don't think we can rule out a domestic argument related killing, but we should be skeptical of such claims.
Stride was a working prostitute that night, and got her throat cut by someone working quickly and efficiently.
Someone like Jack.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 462
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Dang, I thought I was standing alone here. That's OK though, I could take the pressure.
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4163
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Stan,
You are certainly not alone in your beliefs. I would say that those who to some degree questions Stride and Kelly as Ripper victims still are in a very small majority, although things have changed a bit during recent years and thanks to later research.
Caz,
I would say that it actually are those who discredits the canonical five and tries to look in other directions than the traditional ones, who are met with hostility - if not direct ridicule.
I have several times explained the factual points behind why it is possible that Stride might have been victim of murder with domestic motives.
There are facts supporting the other side too, like Sir Robert's point about the quick kill (which is a good point and probably - besides the so called 'coincidence' with Eddowes - the best argument of Stride being a Ripper victim). Apart from that there is absolutely no factual basis whatsoever to accept Stride's canonisation uncritically, there are enough indications pointing elsewhere. People are just taking for granted that the killer was disturbed and that he had to take out his frustration on Eddowes. It can be suggested as theory, but there are hardly any facts making it more likely than anything else. We don't even know if Stride was out soliciting that night!
A modern police force would most likely not treat her case like that today, although it is always easy to get tunnel vision with a serial killer on the loose.
Stride had her throat cut (and not as deeply as the others) and 45 minutes later another woman was found mutilated in another district. Those are her only links to the Ripper, the rest is pure speculation and do not justify disregarding other aspects that surrounds her murder.
That doesn't mean Stride wasn't a Ripper victim - I think there are good chances for that she might have been. But one of the downsides with Ripperology is conformity.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
"We don't even know if Stride was out soliciting that night!"
I agree with you if you mean "know" as in the sense of 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt.
It may seem trivial to some, but I put great weight in her having cachous in her hand at the time of death. I find it hard to believe that a woman out on a social stroll with a man friend would have them out in her hand...it seems to me that they were pretty obviously intended to make the breath "kissing sweet" at that very moment.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 720
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:09 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
As you are well aware, I'm firmly on the fence with Stride. However, a while back I posted some of my own thoughts in the comparison of the throat wounds between Stride and Eddowes. And, from the comparison of the descriptions given by the doctor's at the time, I am not so sure that one would want to conclude that the wound to Stride was really all that much shallower to the wound on Eddowes, and that both appear to have other similarities.
As I recall, the gist of things were that in Stride the left cartoid arterty was nearly completely cut through, and the right undamaged, while with Eddowes the left was cut all the way through and the right only had a small puncture. To me, that suggests that the two wounds have similar "passage routes" (deep on the left, much shallower on the right) but Eddowes was only slightly deeper (just touching the right cartoid, and severing the left as apposed to just about severing the left and just missing the right).
What is interesting is how both of these wounds are very different from the complete circular cuts performed on both Nichols and Chapman, and I think Kelly.
This might be the one issue that could potentially provide a physical link between the murders. It also may be a red herring because these similarities may be something that one finds in almost any throat cutting murder.
Just something to think about while I sit on my fence!
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 721
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:10 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
If Stride had the cachous out preparing to make a sweet kissable breath, then are you suggesting that she was killed after being assaulted by Schwartz's man?
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
We don't even know if Stride was out soliciting that night!
It doesn't matter. It only matters that she was a prostitute, and her killer (whether it was a possessive Kidney, a turned-down punter or Jack) could have assumed she was soliciting, because she was alone outside a men's club at that hour of the night. Blimey, the clues are there.
But if she wasn't soliciting, that might just explain why she was killed - perhaps she was assaulted and/or murdered by someone she refused to play ball with.
Alternatively, she could have been man-handled by broad-shoulders, for not co-operating with him, but been 'rescued' by the watching pipe-man and flattered into doing business with him. A quick dust down and cachou to freshen herself up, then wallop! She knew no more.
Love,
Caz
X |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
"Lipski was not even a common Jewish name"
Sir Robert thought it was an anti-Semitic slur.
(Yikes, that sounds odd coming from me.)
Abberline actually provided the explanation for the use of a Jewish surname being used as an insult.My point was, that Lipski was not a common surname in Whitechapel so why does a man who speaks almost no english run away when it is addressed to him?
Shwarz's statement sounds contrived OR, he was being lead in questioning because of the language barrier.At the height of the Whitechapel killings he see's an attack on a woman in the street and walks off,Pipeman is never traced and later,for the papers,becomes knifeman.....credible?
Ok so tone of voice COULD have been menacing but,for me,it still does not explain why Schwarz did not alert a policeman,nor does his poor command of english.
'The man tried to pull the woman into the street but turned her around and threw her down on the footway'.....
Sounds to me like he's trying to get Stride OUT of the yard not into it....
'& the woman screamed,three times,but not very loudly'......
How DO you scream 'not very loudly'?
Schwarz was reguarded as an important witness by Police and yet Packer is ignored for doing almost exactly what Schwarz did, going to the papers and changing his story.
In a similar vein,later in the investigation,the statements of three people who claim to have seen Mary Kelly after she was supposed to be dead are brushed asside.It appears that officers on this case were 'selective' with statements,picking witnesses to fit their version of the events rather than investigating the root.
I'm sure officers of ex-police officers who post here will tell you that is NOT how you investigate a crime.You have to show a witness is not credible - you cannot just assume a witness 'got the day wrong' |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hi Stan.
I've got to go along with everything you say on this one. Two throat-cutting killers striking on the same night, just a short distance apart, is in itself quite possible.
But the perfect timing of the Mitre Square murder, following the Berner St. job, is stretching coincidence a bit too much for me.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Why does people assume that every domestic murder has to be preceded by ten minutes of shouting and screaming? It is just ridiculous. What phony presumptions about domestic and criminal behaviour is this based on?
It is based on twenty years of attending domestics Glen.
Jog on 
Steve.
|
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Of course Stride was a ripper victim. She was done just before Eddowes. The best point made so far is that for one, there is only the remotest chance of there being an unconnected murder one after the other. He got interrupted with Liz and moved on to the next.
I do accept there might have been two lots of killers as part of the same group. |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Hello Stan,
You wrote:
Two different throat slashing prostitute killers in the same neighborhood at the same hour. Come on, what are the chances? One in a million perhaps?
One in a million?
Hardly.
If you assume that two women have their throats cut by two different killers in the same area that year - and from your posts I gather that you wouldn't consider this a freak accident - than the possibility that this would happen on the same hour of the same day would be 1 in 8740.
It would be in 1 in 8784 if it's a leap year (haven't checked if 1888 was a leap year).
You might say: "Hurray, that means that the possibility it wouldn't happen is 8739 times out of 8740, a very small chance indeed."
Quite so.
But all this is totally beside the point.
For the possibility that Stride would have been killed exactly 24 hours later, or, for that matter, between two and three in the morning on Christmas Day, would also be 1 in 8740, and the possibility that she wouldn't have been would be 8739 in 8740.
So in itself there is no coincidence, no significance, no larger meaning to be derived from the fact that Stride's throat was cut an hour before Eddowes' throat was cut.
No signficance and no larger meaning - unless you happen to believe in the frustrated killer scenario.
I don't.
The man went down into history as "Jack the Ripper" and not as "Jack the Throatslasher" and for good reason. For Jack didn't merely cut his victims throats, he practically severed their heads.
To sum it up.
Mutilations, in every case except Stride's.
Heads severed to the bone, in every case except Stride's.
Slaughtered in quiet surroundings, in every case except Stride's.
The killer, if seen at all, engaged in subdued conversation, in every case except Stride's.
And finally, the witnesses descriptions aren't helpful either.
The most striking aspect of Schwartz's description of Mr. Broadshoulders, is not his moustache or his clothes, but his broad shoulders.
Lawende never mentions any broad shoulders.
The most striking aspect of Lawende's description of the murderer is his red scarf.
Schwartz never mentions a red scarf.
Thoroughly unconvinced as ever.
Kindest regards,
Martin
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 9:23 am: |
|
"If Stride had the cachous out preparing to make a sweet kissable breath, then are you suggesting that she was killed after being assaulted by Schwartz's man? "
Hi Jeff -- I can see how it would imply that, but right this moment I just raised it as something that tells me she was actively soliciting that night.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:07 am: |
|
Jeff
What is interesting is how both of these wounds are very different from the complete circular cuts performed on both Nichols and Chapman, and I think Kelly.
This might be the one issue that could potentially provide a physical link between the murders. It also may be a red herring because these similarities may be something that one finds in almost any throat cutting murder.
If,as is commonly accepted now,he cut the throats while the victims were on the floor,then could'nt he have been doing this when disturbed?
If Stride had the cachous out preparing to make a sweet kissable breath, then are you suggesting that she was killed after being assaulted by Schwartz's man?
To be honest I always thought this was obvious and was the one thing that made it highly unlikely that Schwarz saw Stride being killed.
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Okay - using AP Wolfs fantastic research......
1888 .
The Murder and Attempted Murder of Women in the East End of London.
January
26th - Lucy Clarke - Murder - Indoors - Stranger - Knife
April
7th - Emma Smith - Murder - Outdoors - Stranger - Knife
October
17th - Sarah Brett - A/Murder - Outdoors - Stranger - Knife
November
22nd - Annie Farmer - A/Murder - Indoors - Stranger - Knife
(This case needs urgent attention.)
December
11th - Lucretia Pembroke - A/Murder - Indoors - Stranger - Knife
I've removed domestics and killings where a blade was not used.
What I'm pointing at is this.It is all very well to say Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim but remember this,Stride came after Nichols & Chapman by which time Whitechapel was pretty much in uproar looking for someone who is killing women by slitting their throats on the street.Taking that into account,unless you are THE killer, then are you really stupid enough to kill Liz Stride in such a manner?
AP's research suggests not.Now I do not know if the killings AP describes were solved or not,I also do not know which(if any) involved throat slashing.But as AP shows,between the start of the reign of terror and it's supposed end, we have no women killed on the street in the East End of London.
The simple fact is, that you would have had to have been incredibly stupid to have been Liz Strides murderer, UNLESS you were the Ripper.To have run that risk,to have been caught with that knife in your hand, even before Liz was dead,then you were running the very real risk of a noose.
It is very very difficult to imagine anyone, after Nichols & Chapman died, running such a huge risk.
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 464
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Hi,
EEWWWww!! Wouldn't kissing a prostitute be something like fellatio by proxy?
Martin: I've lived over half a million hours and, as yet, there's not been even one single throat slashing prostitute killer in my neighborhood.
Best wishes
Stan |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Hi Stan,
Of course the cachous could well have had another purpose entirely - to take away a nasty taste in Liz's mouth... 
Love,
Caz
X |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 267
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
I think that fellatio was a French technique , and not one used by English prostitutes.
Personally , I think Liz was on some sort of a date rather than meeting a client.
And yes , I think Stride WAS a Ripper victim ! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2198
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Hi Simon,
Anything that can be done sexually (especially if it doesn't lead to pregnancy) would have been on a prostitute's menu the world over centuries before 1888, surely?
Difficult to find evidence that they didn't do this - isn't it? Who could one trust to ask the question?
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
"Personally , I think Liz was on some sort of a date rather than meeting a client. "
Odd behavior and an odd place for a date...anything is possible but the evidence and common sense point to Stride soliciting that night. That doesn't mean that she didn't see and chat with "friends" during the course of the evening...but that's not why she was where she was that evening.
Here's a question, and if it has been discussed elsewhere, I apologize in advance:
Anyone ever wonder that the reason that Stride drew her killer's attention was that she was soliciting outside what was essentially a Jewish club ? There's a lot of anti-Semitic elements to that night..."Lipski"..."the Juwes"....murder outside the IWMEC...one could even connect the "you'd say anything except your prayers" comment to that sort of reasoning.
I understand that it is pure supposition and conjecture....
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 722
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
I understand. I was just thinking about the implications that follow from the idea that she gets out the cachous after being assaulted.
My pet theory on the cachous, which is only a theory, and one that I admit is unfortunately untestable (so I only offer it as something to consider), is the following: Stride kept the packet tucked up under the cuff of her sleeve. When she was fatally attacked, and put to the ground, and her throat cut, they fell out of her cuff and into her hand. My grandmother used to keep tissues under her shirt cuffs because her dresses and such did not have pockets. But, her shirt cuffs were tight enough to hold such things.
The reason I think this works as an alternative is because I find it more likely that she would have dropped them entirely if she had them in her hand at the time of her fatal assault (whether that assault was by Swartz's broad shouldered man or not). To me, I find the fact that they were found in her palm, between the finger and thumb, something that indicates they may have slid out into that position from under her sleeve. If she were holding them, upon attack, I would think she would have just dropped the whole lot.
Of course, another alternative is that they were placed there by her killer after she's dead.
Anyway, I'm by no means pushing this as "the solution", but I do think it's one possible solution. And, if it's considered reasonable, it would also mean that Broad Shoulders could also have been her killer (because either of the above alternatives do not require Stride to take a moment to get out the cachous herself).
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 781
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
"Odd behavior and an odd place for a date..
Would you call kissing, hugging, walking and quietly talking together odd behaviour for a couple on a date? Would you (highly hypothetically speaking of course ) give a prostitute a flower - or would that fit more with a date? What would you consider a 'proper' or suitable place for a date then?
"...anything is possible but the evidence and common sense point to Stride soliciting that night."
I sure ain't claiming Stride wasn't soliciting that night, but I certainly wouldn't say that it's clear she was either.
"...but that's not why she was where she was that evening."
Are you withholding information, Sir Robert - do you know more than I do? 
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Hey Jeff !
" I find it more likely that she would have dropped them entirely if she had them in her hand at the time of her fatal assault "
To me, the cachous in the hand further reinforces the notion that Stride's killer was Jack, in that he seems to have been able to incapacitate with lightning speed. She didn't even have a chance to drop them.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 782
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Hi Steve,
"To have run that risk,to have been caught with that knife in your hand, even before Liz was dead,then you were running the very real risk of a noose."
Honest question: wouldn't anyone who murdered another person in whatever way run the very real risk of the noose in those days?
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
