Summing Up And Verdict

[Lewis C]

That's a fair point indeed.


If the couple seen by Brown were Stride and her killer, then the comment made by Stride is perhaps indicative of the idea that she knew her killer in some capacity.

"No, not tonight, some other night."

That suggests a future encounter.


If the speech was simply...

"No, not tonight"

...then that is fairly ambiguous.


but the specific phrase that includes...
"...some other night."

suggests that Stride not only knew the man (if it was Stride) but that he was also a punter that she attempted to fob off to engage with at a later date.

Was this man so disgruntled that he merely followed her into the yard, and then killed her for refusing his advances?

What would that do for Stride's inclusion as a Ripper victim?

Hi RD,

If you start by assuming that he killed her for refusing his advances, that would suggest that he wasn't the Ripper. Presumably, the Ripper would have killed her if she had accepted his advances, if "his advances" is even the right way to describe them.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

If you start by assuming that he killed her for refusing his advances, that would suggest that he wasn't the Ripper. Presumably, the Ripper would have killed her if she had accepted his advances, if "his advances" is even the right way to describe them.

Good point.


But Chapman was also heard telling her killer "No!"


I suspect it was the victims rebuttal of his advances that spurred him on.

Rejection being the catalyst to reveal his "Dr Hyde."

[Wickerman]

Good point.


But Chapman was also heard telling her killer "No!"


I suspect it was the victims rebuttal of his advances that spurred him on.

Rejection being the catalyst to reveal his "Dr Hyde."

I've always viewed the "No!" as her verbal response to the physical attack, not any sexual advances.
They were in the backyard, somewhere quiet, so she can work with his advances. What she would resist is a physical attack unrelated to the sex act.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The “no” might have been a “no, we’ll be ok,” in response to the killer asking if they were likely to be disturbed at that location. As Cadosch was re-entering number 27 at the time it might explain why he didn’t hear the rest of the sentence. Also people can often emphasise a “no” in that kind of context and so say it slightly louder.

[FrankO]

Scarf pulled tight from behind
One deep cut
Cachous in hand
Laying on left side (in a fetal type position)
No mutilations.

The evidence suggests the attack was quick, clean, decisive, and deliberate.

The entire murder, from initial grab by her scarf, to the point the killer walked off, could have been done in under a minute.

If the murder occurred today, it could fall into the realms of a professional hit.

Considering the Ripper's record with post mutilation, it would seem likely that the killer was either interrupted and had to flee quickly; thus he wasn't able to inflict any of the desired post mortem cuts, or he wasn't the Ripper anyway.

Hi RD,

Sorry for the late response. I think the entire murder as you describe it, could be done in much less than a minute, I think even less than 20 seconds. Furthermore, if he was actually interrupted in the technical sense that he had already started his attack on her, then it means he was disturbed while he was in the process of pulling her back by the scarf or cutting her throat. Or maybe he had already decided to kill her when he heard something or someone approaching and then went ahead to do just that and left before anybody arrived at the scene.

Cheers,
Frank