Previous Assaults on Liz

[c.d.]

True, CD, but my question was more about the bare probability of two different men finding Liz Stride and perpetrating violence upon her, within a mere handful of minutes, in precisely the same location - rather than whether or not the actions of BS could influence where Jack decided to walk. (I know you weren't implying the latter, but I just wanted to make the distinction.)

Hi Sam,

But what form does this so called violence take? A push to the ground (and we can't even be sure of that, Liz might have slipped). This is the point of the whole thread. Not an unusual occurrence for a prostitute but we bestow much greater significance upon it because of what followed. That diminishes the probability in my mind. Just because event B follows event A it does not necessarily mean that event A was the cause of event B.

c.d.

[Ben]

Sorry folks, but wanting Stride to be a ripper victim on the one hand and not wanting Jack the Ripper to be the BS man on the other is the ultimate in unsuccessful attemps to have one's cake and eat it. As Gareth points out, the "coincidence" on offer here is too unrealistic to be viable. If Schwartz told the truth and was correct in his ID, he saw the victim being attacked at the same time Dr. Blackwell estimated that she died.

Overwhelmingly simple and logical deduction: the man seen attacking her was the man who killed her. Those debating her inclusion or exclusion ought first to acknowledge that strong likelihood and then decide how it impacts upon the "Jack or not" connundrum. Me - I think good arguments have been made on either side, although I don't see any huge obstacle to BS being the ripper. For others who (for whatever reason) just can't accept that the ripper would behave like that, it may be time to re-think Liz's inclusion, rather than stretching the evidence to fit their idea of how Jack would behave into the equation.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Sorry folks, but wanting Stride to be a ripper victim on the one hand and not wanting Jack the Ripper to be the BS man on the other is the ultimate in unsuccessful attemps to have one's cake and eat it. As Gareth points out, the "coincidence" on offer here is too unrealistic to be viable. If Schwartz told the truth and was correct in his ID, he saw the victim being attacked at the same time Dr. Blackwell estimated that she died.

Overwhelmingly simple and logical deduction: the man seen attacking her was the man who killed her. Those debating her inclusion or exclusion ought first to acknowledge that strong likelihood and then decide how it impacts upon the "Jack or not" connundrum. Me - I think good arguments have been made on either side, although I don't see any huge obstacle to BS being the ripper. For others who (for whatever reason) just can't accept that the ripper would behave like that, it may be time to re-think Liz's inclusion, rather than stretching the evidence to fit their idea of how Jack would behave into the equation.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I don't think a lot of people have been killed by being thrown to the ground. And that is all that was seen by Schwartz. No hitting, no display of a knife. No Liz begging that her life be spared. And as for the time, Chief Inspector Swanson felt that there could have been another assailant, the one who actually killed her.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Of course she wasn't killed by being thrown to the ground, but the fact that she was seen to be attacked at the same time she was thought to have died offers us with a complete and utter no-brainer: man attacking her at 12:45am is probably the man who killed her shortly thereafter. The throwing of Stride to the ground was very obviously the initial point of violence contact that later resulted in death.

If you don't think that's "Ripperesque" enough then I'd strongly suggest that you'd be better off arguing against Stride's inclusion altogether or, as an alternative, come up with an argument against Schwartz's veracity.

Chief Inspector Swanson felt that there could have been another assailant, the one who actually killed her.

That doesn't mean he considered it remotely likely that someone did, though.

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

He may have, Elias, although that doesn't strike me as a particularly economical or reliable strategy for someone who had an arguably strong compulsion to kill and mutilate.

But it's not impossible, if that 'strong compulsion' was triggered by something (eg. witnessing violence, or even just seeing some unfortunate seemingly peddling her wares)...yes, he had an arguably strong compulsion, but it was under wraps for the vast majority of his killing period. It's arguable, then, that something triggered it, and availability may have been one of these things.

Also, with regard to the idea proposed elsewhere that it is unlikely there would be two violent men in the vicinity of Liz Stride at the same time...I think this vastly underestimates the number of people with a propensity to violence. And, it's certainly arguable that those who tend towards this sort of behaviour are also turned on or triggered into violence towards someone when they see them being victimised by somebody else. This might also explain why he (if it was Jack) didn't do his thing--rather than being disturbed, it may just have been that he was spurred into a lethal attack because he saw the assault, although this wasn't his choice of location et cetera. A short while later, he worked out his awful needs on Kate Eddowes, whom he may or may not have actually arranged to meet.

I'm not saying this was what happened. But I think to dismiss c.d's proposal simply on the basis of there not being that many violent men around is possibly erroneous.

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

It appears as though you have gotten hold of Perry Mason's super deluxe nano second Olympic stop watch But let me make the following points:

Prostitutes have been "assaulted" without it resulting in death. Most people here said that in all likelihood Liz had experienced far worse attacks than what she received at the hands of the BS man. Obviously they didn't result in her death.

The concensus was that if the BS man had simply thrown Liz to the ground, cussed her out and gone on his way, that the whole incident could easily transpired in less than five minutes.

How much time would Jack needed to do his thing? 3 minutes maybe?

The time of death was simply an estimate and not written in stone as some would like us to believe.

I don't see anything that prevents Jack from showing up and killing Liz. You can argue probability out the wazoo but I don't see anything that tips the argument that strongly against him being Liz's killer.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I think to dismiss c.d's proposal simply on the basis of there not being that many violent men around is possibly erroneous.

That's not quite what I said, Claire. My problem is with two of them arriving at the same out-of-the-way spot, one scuffling with Stride, and the other cutting her throat within a handful of minutes of the first leaving the scene. (Edit: and Liz meekly remaining there in between times!)

[Ben]

Hi Claire,

So Jack was casually walking by Berner Street, witnessed the attack on Stride by BS and thought "Hey, now there's a good idea!", and casually waited for him to finish in order to have his turn? It just wasn't her night, was it?

Two seperate attackers descending upon Liz Stride independently of eachother, within a space of a few minutes (if that), and in precisely the same location is far too much to take on board. If Schwartz told the truth and Liz was a ripper victim, the broad-shouldered man was Jack the Ripper, and that isn't so problematic at all.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Prostitutes have been "assaulted" without it resulting in death.

Yes, CD, but rarely are those attacks followed by another attack in precisely the same location, with the second one resulting in death. It doesn't matter what "could have" happened in the time available. Tumblety could have leaped out of a nearby window within the time available, but it doesn't enhance the likelihood of it happening, just as the timing factor doesn't enhance the likelihood of two independent attackers descending on Liz Stride within minutes of eachother in the same location. There's absolutely no reason, short of disbelieving Schwartz, to assume that anyone other than Liz's attacker killed Liz. It was where she was found dead, the sighting coincided with the medically estimated time of death etc etc.

You can argue probability out the wazoo but I don't see anything that tips the argument that strongly against him being Liz's killer.

Well, I find that utterly astonishing, but there ya go.

Cheers,
Ben

[auspirograph]

To take a wild stab here, because there were pubs in the area, not to mention the club itself, and according to the club's members prostitutes were known to frequent the area. Certainly makes more sense than, say, Hanbury Street or Buck's Row.

Well that's odd because not so long ago you were arguing for the ridiculous notion that because Berner Street is south of the Whitechapel Road it was out of the Ripper's area according to the theories of geographical profiling. And now you are trying to mislead people because the wind is blowing in the opposite direction...

A wild stab indeed if Stride was not a Ripper victim and killed by a member of the club.

[The Grave Maurice]

If Schwartz told the truth and Liz was a ripper victim, the broad-shouldered man was Jack the Ripper....

I have two difficulties with that, Ben. First, according to Schwartz, BS man appeared to be at least partially intoxicated. Second, BS man continued his assault on Stride in full view of Schwartz and Pipeman. Neither sounds like JtR to me.

[claire]

Hi Claire,

So Jack was casually walking by Berner Street, witnessed the attack on Stride by BS and thought "Hey, now there's a good idea!", and casually waited for him to finish in order to have his turn? It just wasn't her night, was it?

Two seperate attackers descending upon Liz Stride independently of eachother, within a space of a few minutes (if that), and in precisely the same location is far too much to take on board. If Schwartz told the truth and Liz was a ripper victim, the broad-shouldered man was Jack the Ripper, and that isn't so problematic at all.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

No, I didn't quite say that he got the idea to kill from witnessing the violence. I said he may have been triggered by it.

As for the two separate attackers--why not? In the course of my previous work, the number of women I came across raped or assaulted by two different assailants on the same night or within a very short space of time (yes, admittedly not 5 minutes) was shocking...women fleeing from the home of a domestic assailant, raped by a man who saw them waiting at bus stops and so forth. Assailants sniff out victims. It would be more unusual if they didn't. And one thing we do know for certain about Jack: he picked on women who were, objectively, very much down on their luck. We know he had already killed, we know he'd crossed that barrier. I'm not saying that I believe for certain that is what happened; only that I've no reason to dismiss it on the distribution of violent assailants thesis.

[Sam Flynn]

Certainly makes more sense than, say, Hanbury Street or Buck's Row.

...both of which branched off comparatively well-lit thoroughfares - as, too, did Berner Street. I already made the point that I could understand Jack loitering in Commercial Road (or outside a nearby pub) and picking up with Liz there. My issue - which I thought I'd stated clearly enough - was what on earth would bring Jack to Dutfield's Yard on the off-chance, assuming Liz was still alive after Broadshoulders had finished with her?

[claire]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;37473was what on earth would bring Jack to Dutfield's Yard on the off-chance, assuming Liz was still alive after Broadshoulders had finished with her?[/QUOTE]

Maybe he was having a bevvie or lived nearby (grief, I was going to say, in close proximity ) and was on his way home...

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were out having a few beers with Perry Mason. Obviously nothing I have said or can say will make you change your mind so I guess we will have to leave it at that.

Keep your stick on the ice.

c.d.