Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Elizabeth's murder and the double event

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Elizabeth's murder and the double event

    I'm wondering if it's ever occurred to anyone that Elizabeth Stride's murder may have been a distraction in order to cover for the killing of Catherine Eddowes. If the Ripper was working with one or two accomplices, which can't be ruled out just because the police weren't pursuing that line at the time of the double event, perhaps the plan was to have one of the accomplices commit a murder in one part of Whitechapel, while the Ripper got on with his more 'signature style' killing somewhere else. This would make sense for a number of reasons;
    - everyone was now on high alert and looking for a lone killer, thereby making it more difficult to kill. A new strategy had to be invented to keep the police running in rings. (We see him change strategy again with MJK).
    - the more I look at the killings, the more I see this as bearing the hallmarks of more than one person. First of all, there seems to be two different skill sets at work; someone who understood anatomy and/or butchery who would have been trained to a high level and therefore quite probably employed or of the middle class, and someone else who knew the back streets and haunts of the poor and homeless like the back of their hand. I don't think these two things are necessarily compatible in the late Victorian era. Basically, this seems like the job of one mastermind and a 'fixer' who set things up for him, who found the women.
    -a two or even three handed operation would have meant it was easier to hide evidence, work quickly and get away. This may have been more difficult with one person rather than a team working in tandem.
    -Elizabeth Stride's murder seems to bear the hallmarks of someone who had learned the basics of how the Ripper killed, but the act was performed sloppily (like an accomplice). The 'accomplice' may have been the man Schwartz saw.
    -Elizabeth Stride's murder just doesn't feel as if it fits - it was done too carelessly and too much in the open. But Catherine Eddowes' death seems more like his work. Perhaps the accomplice had slightly botched the first 'distraction' murder?

  • #2
    The Police did feel that there was more than one person involved with the murders,hence the offer of a pardon for "any accomplice, not being the person who contrived or actually committed the murder".

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting. I thought they'd given up on the idea of a gang after Annie Chapman's murder, though I guess that they hadn't entirely ruled out 2 or 3 individuals working together. I can't get this idea out of my head when I look at the Stride murder.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Police did feel that there was more than one person involved with the murders,hence the offer of a pardon for "any accomplice, not being the person who contrived or actually committed the murder".
        I think this may have been for any family who would know if someone wasn't quite right.

        Pat.................

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
          The Police did feel that there was more than one person involved with the murders,hence the offer of a pardon for "any accomplice, not being the person who contrived or actually committed the murder".
          Reckon that was meant for sailor man Hutchinson.

          Perhaps if Eddowes was not in jail,she would have been with Stride and Frank Carter/BS man.
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • #6
            One of the biggest problems I have with the idea that Stride was a "decoy" for the murder of Eddowes is that there could be little guarantee that another victim would be found so soon afterwards. Indeed, that's a problem with the concept of the "Double Event" in itself, whatever the motivation.
            Last edited by Sam Flynn; 11-14-2017, 12:22 AM.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • #7
              If the intention was to distract or preoccupy the police, then why 2 different jurisdictions? Why so long between murders..over 45 minutes. How could the killers plan for the Eddowes kill when she was incarcerated until 1am? Why take such a chance on the 1st murder location...anyone from the street or the club could have come across the murder while in progress easily.

              I think the evidence speaks for itself, that Liz was there for some purpose we don't yet know, and she was killed while inside the passageway, in either case, there is a strong possibility she was killed because someone misunderstood why she was there.

              Again...for the people that tend to disregard the obvious, Liz was "dressed nicely", even wanted a lint brush for her clothes, she had indicated that she might not return to her regular lodgings that night, she has a flower on her breast she may have purchase with the 6d she earned cleaning that last afternoon, and mints in her hand. She had also been regularly working "among the Jews", who were the proprietors and attendees at the very club she was at. After a large meeting..which created a large mess I would imagine.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #8
                The mistake is to assume that the choice of Eddowes was anything other than a random act. The fact that she was incarcerated until 1 am is immaterial. Both Eddowes and Stride were random victims, but the idea may have been to cause a distraction in one part of town while a killing went on somewhere else. 45 mins is a perfect window of time for that. By the time Stride was discovered, the Ripper was busy with Eddowes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Again...for the people that tend to disregard the obvious, Liz was "dressed nicely", even wanted a lint brush for her clothes, she had indicated that she might not return to her regular lodgings that night, she has a flower on her breast she may have purchase with the 6d she earned cleaning that last afternoon, and mints in her hand. She had also been regularly working "among the Jews", who were the proprietors and attendees at the very club she was at. After a large meeting..which created a large mess I would imagine."

                  Hello Michael,

                  I assume that you are implying that she was on a date that night. She might well have gone out with that expectation but dates don't always show up as they had promised. And remember that this was before cell phones so that there would be no way to let her know that something came up. Also, dates can end suddenly on a bad note leaving her out in the cold figuratively and literally. As for the 6d, that was hardly a great deal of money. I know that you absolutely refuse to believe that she might have resorted to soliciting under those conditions but to me it certainly seems like a reasonable possibility.

                  c.d.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Furthermore, even if it was not her original intention to solicit that night we have no way of knowing what her response would be if approached by Jack with an offer of a few extra dollars for her services. So even if we could deduce her mindset and intentions at the start of the evening it simply does not follow that they would have remained the same throughout the evening.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      We're never going to solve the mystery of why Liz was there or who she was going to meet. Virtually nothing concrete is known about her life or the people she spent time with, beyond Michael Kidney. In this instance, it's pretty much irrelevant. We can either assuming that both murders that occurred on the night of the double event were not premeditated, but opportunistic, or that Liz's murder was not committed by the Ripper at all. I'm proposing that it may have been committed by someone working with the Ripper as a distraction while he killed somewhere else.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think the idea of these two murders being unconnected is improbable.

                        However it is not improbable they could have been commuted by a different murderer.

                        If the cry went up from Berner Street "The Ripper's struck again" and Jack is out having a quiet pint, he finished his pint leaves the pub and while the police are running in the opposite direction he finds a woman walking alone, still a bit worse for drink and they agree to some business in a dark corner of mitre square.

                        Two murders, by different hands, but the later inspired by the former.
                        My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                        Dave.

                        Smilies are canned laughter.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Madam Detective View Post
                          The mistake is to assume that the choice of Eddowes was anything other than a random act. The fact that she was incarcerated until 1 am is immaterial. Both Eddowes and Stride were random victims, but the idea may have been to cause a distraction in one part of town while a killing went on somewhere else. 45 mins is a perfect window of time for that. By the time Stride was discovered, the Ripper was busy with Eddowes.














                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                            Furthermore, even if it was not her original intention to solicit that night we have no way of knowing what her response would be if approached by Jack with an offer of a few extra dollars for her services. So even if we could deduce her mindset and intentions at the start of the evening it simply does not follow that they would have remained the same throughout the evening.

                            c.d.
                            Hi CD
                            Liz was not solicitating that night. You don't spend hours with the same man (peaked cap man) wandering about, playing coy and buying stuff with him if your actively solicitating. that she wasn't actively prostituting herself is why she probably didn't get mutilated as she wasn't going to the first dark corner with her man. She just broke up with kidney, and was worried about her looks, so she was probably out looking for her next boyfriend and or out for a good time.


                            and as for the idea that her murder was somehow an intentional distraction for another murder-well that's only slightly more far fetched than a copy cat theory.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I fear this is a case of pot calling the kettle black. We know nothing about what Liz was really doing - every sighting of her that night is unconfirmed. There is no absolute way to know if she 'spent hours with the same man wandering about'. There is also no absolute way of knowing if she was soliciting, or who she was meeting. Not a single shred of anything said by the so-called witnesses is verifiable. We don't even have the transcripts of the actual coroner's inquest, only newspaper reports which have been edited and reprinted. There is a vital difference between newspapers and the actual documents when it comes to reliability of source material. That's why we're never going to solve these murders. Period.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X