Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[lynn cates]

behaviour

Hello Andy. Welcome to the boards.

Yes, what you describe is possible. But obviously, the question arises, "Why then did he stop and converse with her, especially in that he evinced signs of belligerence?"

If he were the lone sexual serial killer in whom so many believe, and he were looking for a victim, why not cosy up to Liz, speak affably, check for witnesses, enter the yard, go behind the gate, kill Liz, mutilate, exit?

But that never happened.

Happy hunting.

Cheers.
LC

[andy1867]

Absolutely no idea Lynn ...unless maybe his "cosying up" wasn't working and Shwartz arrival coincided with his getting more aggressive...
I simply found it coincidental that 2 murders occurred so close to each other on the same night...although from what I have read recently on this site...it seems violence in the area was something of the norm for the period...thanks for the reply

[andy1867]

Sorry Lynn..i get your point...I was under the misapprehension that the conversation was already taking place when Shwartz came upon the couple...but i see in his statement he says "he saw the man approach the woman"

[lynn cates]

coincidences

Hello Andy. Thanks. Actually, a third woman died that same night of a cut throat, but was unrelated to the other two.

Coincidences do happen.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello Andy. Thanks. Actually, a third woman died that same night of a cut throat, but was unrelated to the other two.

Coincidences do happen.

Indeed, Lynn.

Do you refer to the text book "domestic" murder in Westminster on the 29th? The one where the whole street could hear the man and wife arguing in their room, for it all to go suddenly quiet and the man then marches himself to the nearest police station to confess and hand over the murder weapon?

[Michael W Richards]

I'm really new to this so pardon me in advance for the mistakes that will probably follow.
I have recently finished listening to the rippercast (which I found enthralling) and have been scouring this vast forum (which I found somewhat intimidating).. for an answer to a simple query I have regarding the Liz Stride podcast.
As, it seems Strides Victim status is a matter of some conjecture due the one fatal wound with no following mutilations,is it not a possibility that "broad shouldered man", knowing he had been seen by Shwartz(sp) and this bloke with the pipe...who could recognise him, and may well have run off to get a policeman,,,decided to dispatch Liz Stride with haste...(bearing in mind he could not leave her alive as she could describe him....or maybe even KNEW him) and that hue and cry could follow any moment?
I apologise if this subject has already been dealt with somewhere else..if so maybe some kind soul could simply point me in the right direction lol

Hi Andy,

Dont worry amigo, just about every kind of discussion of these crimes has at one time or another been duplicated eventually.

As for the Broadshouldered Man, IF you accept Israel Schwartz's story, as synopsized by Swanson in his notes, he is a very likely candidate for her killer. An assault on the victim within a minute or 2 of the earliest cut time that Blackwell offered is at the least some circumstantial basis for looking at him as the culprit.

The problem is that we have no evidence in the records that states Israel was at the Inquest, or that any interest was shown afterward by the authorities other than his "Lipski" story element. We have no corroboration for Israels altercation, or for Louis's arrival and immediate actions, or for Morris Eagle's return at 12:40am, or for Lave standing at the gates at around 12:40am,...but we do have for Spooner's assistance, and Leon Goldstein's pass by at 12:55-56am, and the young couple loitering in the area for that last 1/2 hour.

My point is that the evidence we do have via the Inquest statements suggests that nothing was happening at 12:45 on the street in front of the gates and that Liz Stride was out of view for at least Fanny Mortimer, (at her door off and on that last half hour), from the time PC Smith left.

When you dont have a story that can be trusted fully you have to accept the data, and the data says that Liz Stride was killed unlike any other Canonical,.. with one cut, possibly while falling, and without any evidence that her murderer intended to do further harm to her after the throat cut.

The reason she is a Canonical rests on purely circumstantial evidence...historical, she is killed during what was assumed to be a serial killers murder spree and killed on a night when this same supposed killer commits a second more familiar type of murder, geographic,...within the mile square "kill zone" and the proximity to the second victim,.. victimology, a middle aged Unfortunate who had not paid for a bed yet that night, ...a throat slit as a killing stroke,...and the remote possibility that Louis Diemshutz's arrival prevented any mutilations.

Everyone is entitled to see this murder as they choose, but anyone can easily see that Liz Stride wasnt "'ripped".

If she were to be set aside pending further evidence should it surface, then we might be able to see more clearly the dramatic change from the skilled and knowledgeable cutting, specific targets, MO and Methodology used to kill Polly then Annie, to the sloppiness and lack of skill sets that both Kate and Mary represent.

[andy1867]

Hiya Michael and thanks for the reply,
It does all get a bit confusing at times for the more or less newly arrived...I did post on here a couple of years ago...only several times but lapsed simply because theres nothing one can add, bar a few questions that the regulars seem to have to answer ad nauseum so although retaining an interest in the subject when i logged on to ask another probably pointless question...I had to re-register..
Since then ive watched a few of the documentaries, and having recently watched the Patricia Cornwell Sickert one...was wondering what the views on it on the forum were...as I found the documentary itself rather strange, as it was mainly conjecture with no real substance bar what seemed one persons interpretation of shady facts and paintings...so ive ordered her book which i presume does at least try and place him around the scenes at the dates the events happened..because there was nothing in the documentary that seemed to do that...the final scene was Patricia saying summatt like "Look at his eyes!!!"..in a video where he had a hat on...and you couldn't actually..."Look at his eyes"
This time around I'll try and post more often...but that means asking questions...which probably means i'll have to re re register...
Andy

[Phil H]

The simplest explantion for the murder of Stride remains that her lover, Michael Kidney killed her.

If Schwartz's evidence has any truth in it, then the description of a man pulling a woman OUT of the yard, NOT into it, fits. So would a misheard cry of "Lizzie!" from the man (misheard as "Lipski!").

The murder site is untypical of other Ripper sites, too public, witnesses about. BUT it would fit a spur of the moment, "crime of passion" and Kidney's subsequent actions.

Phil H

[andy1867]

I read about the "Lipski" thing...was it a common insult or something?..I believe it referred to another earlier murder..if ive read correctly

[Trevor Marriott]

The simplest explantion for the murder of Stride remains that her lover, Michael Kidney killed her.

If Schwartz's evidence has any truth in it, then the description of a man pulling a woman OUT of the yard, NOT into it, fits. So would a misheard cry of "Lizzie!" from the man (misheard as "Lipski!").

The murder site is untypical of other Ripper sites, too public, witnesses about. BUT it would fit a spur of the moment, "crime of passion" and Kidney's subsequent actions.

Phil H

Spot on Phil

Plus the fact that there were discrepancies with regards to the inquest testimony given by Kidney and the evidence given by friends of Stride.

Even Don Rumbellow sides with a domestic killing.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If Michael Kidney had killed Elizabeth Stride he would have found himself in the troubling position of knowing that the concept of Jack the Ripper and the double-event was a crock of old horsefeathers.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

If Michael Kidney had killed Elizabeth Stride he would have found himself in the troubling position of knowing that the concept of Jack the Ripper and the double-event was a crock of old horsefeathers.

And would not have been able to say anything about it!!

Edited to add that, Kidney could have been the man seen sitting on a step nearby, in a press cutting found (I believe) by Sugden.

A Kidney killing would also give "Jack" more time to stalk, meet, talk to etc, Kate Eddowes. There is no need to have to take into account a frantic rush north, or a search for a second victim - he has all the time in the world.

andy1867

Israel Lipski was convicted of the murder of his fiancee, in a street close to the Stride murder scene, in the previous year. he was hanged for the crime.

Senior police officers in 1888, debated the exact meaning of the word "Lipski" as mentioned by Schwartz. Was it an insult, could it have been addressed by the attacker to a Jew?? I recall that their conclusion was that the name had become something of a local insult towards Jews.

Phil H

[andy1867]

So Israel schwartz (sp)..was fairly easily identifiable as a jew?...would that be dress and appearance?...
Sorry Phil...thanks for your answer...and apologies if I'm stating what may be obvious to the more knowledgeable on the subject
Andy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

You're missing the point.

Kidney having been Stride's killer negates the concept of Jack the Ripper, Saucy Jacky and the double-event.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

Kidney having been Stride's killer negates the concept of Jack the Ripper, Saucy Jacky and the double-event.

No, I took the point, and raised it one no trump!!

I gave up - for personal theorising purposes - the idea of a single serial killer, some years ago. That model had got us nowhere.

I was quite shocked when I read books like (I think, AP Wolf's) and others to be deprived of a single traditional "Jack" but the more i thought about it the more the concept grew.

Today, I see (though I balance a number of ideas in my head) perhaps one killer (stereotypical "Jack" as the killer of Nichols, Chapman and maybe Eddowes. I see Stride as a coincidental killing by Kidney - and Kelly as a crime of passion by an intimate - Barnett, Fleming or someone similar. McKenzie COULD just be a final attempt by a weakened "Jack" and Eddowes might be by a different hand completely (Fenian?) but I won't quibble about that.

Kidney may well have known - played on - the fact that "Jack" did not exist as the police and public opinion depicted him, but who was kidney going to tell?

I've stated all this before many times, but you seemed surprised that I was not constipated on a single killer theory - so I have stated it again.

Phil H