Different Killers

[MrBarnett]

Hello John.

"In my opinion, therefore, the rarity of this type of crime is sufficient to prove, on balance of probability, that the C5 victims plus Tabram were murdered by a single killer."

And by that reasoning, ALL 50 year old single malt comes from the same distillery in Scotland.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

And if you were to come across 5 bottles of 50-year-old malt each containing a pickled egg, would your guess be that they were most likely produced by one rather strange distiller, or that a pickled egg mania briefly swept the whole of the Highlands?

MrB

[chrismasonic]

there is arguments and fights outside nightclubs all the time...you can't always blame the ripper

[c.d.]

Hello C.d,

Of course, BS man may not have killed Stride, but that surely depends on whether you believe Schwartz. and the police clearly did. Otherwise, your left the completely unlikely solution that Stride was attacked by 2 different men, in virtually the same location, within the space of just a few minutes. What's more, having been assaulted by assailant number 1, I hardly think it likely that she would remain rooted to the same spot until assailant number 2 came along some minutes later! Surely she would have been far more likely to flea the scene or seek refuge and assistance in the nearby club.

Hello John,

Attack and assault are very strong words and imply a serious intent to harm the victim but we have no way of knowing if that is in fact the case. Schwartz never used the word attack or assault. He simply saw a woman being thrown to the ground. What if the intention of the B.S. man was to simply teach Liz a lesson for mouthing off to him? Maybe he was drunk and pushed a little harder than he intended. Maybe Liz was caught off balance and fell. Now this "assault" or "attack" becomes nothing more than what was probably not an uncommon scenario for a lone woman late at night on the streets of Whitechapel especially if she were soliciting. Liz would have been a piss poor prostitute and would have probably starved to death had she let something like this chase her off the street.

As for her killer (be it Jack or someone else) showing up shortly afterwards, the two events are not related. Swanson was a veteran policeman and his mentioning that possibility in his report should lend it some credence.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello (again) CD.

"You say that there was the possibility that Liz could identify the B.S. man but the question is identify him as what, the man who pushed her? Does it make sense that the B.S. man would rather kill her which is a hanging offense rather than be identified as the man who pushed her for which I doubt he would get more than just a don't do that again lecture."

Gold star time.

Cheers.
LC

I'm blushing like a school girl. Thank you, Lynn.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

The yolk's on you.

Hello Mr. B. Thanks.

Scotch eggs, surely? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

blame

Hello Chris. Ah! But you CAN blame him--easier than thinking.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

making strides

Hello CD. Thanks.

Well, you DO know a good bit about the Stride case.

We DO agree on many essential points.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

there is arguments and fights outside nightclubs all the time...you can't always blame the ripper

Indeed, that's why he's been blamed once.

[chrismasonic]

Hello John,

Attack and assault are very strong words and imply a serious intent to harm the victim but we have no way of knowing if that is in fact the case. Schwartz never used the word attack or assault. He simply saw a woman being thrown to the ground. What if the intention of the B.S. man was to simply teach Liz a lesson for mouthing off to him? Maybe he was drunk and pushed a little harder than he intended. Maybe Liz was caught off balance and fell. Now this "assault" or "attack" becomes nothing more than what was probably not an uncommon scenario for a lone woman late at night on the streets of Whitechapel especially if she were soliciting. Liz would have been a piss poor prostitute and would have probably starved to death had she let something like this chase her off the street.

As for her killer (be it Jack or someone else) showing up shortly afterwards, the two events are not related. Swanson was a veteran policeman and his mentioning that possibility in his report should lend it some credence.

c.d.

I don't think he said any of that...he didn't use the word attack or assault because he didn't speak English...he described events to his friend who translated it for the police and the newspaper...and a knife was mentioned the second time

just because that is what ended up on paper doesn't mean he wasn't using gestures to demonstrate the attack/assault or whatever it was...he most likely described the event in more detail to his friend and his friend was crap at translating it into English for the scribe to write down...and the scribe was crap at writing statements...

the newspaper version has more detail in it...why is that?

[c.d.]

the newspaper version has more detail in it...why is that?

Because newspapers at the time tended to embellish their stories in order to attract readership.

c.d.

[chrismasonic]

the newspaper version has more detail in it...why is that?

Because newspapers at the time tended to embellish their stories in order to attract readership.

c.d.

that would have to filed under maybe...of course he might have has a better translator with him when relaying events to the newspaper guy

[c.d.]

The question of whether or not the B.S. man had a knife would have been quite important to the police so I think it is a reasonable assumption that they asked Schwartz about it and I can't imagine that the word knife doesn't translate well. So if there is a discrepancy between the police report and the newspaper account I would have to go with the former.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

It was not just any newspaper either, but the most controversial, some say untrustworthy 'tabloid', of the period.

[Ausgirl]

there is arguments and fights outside nightclubs all the time...you can't always blame the ripper

Not since the late 1800's, anyway.

Unless he's like. you know, a vampire.

[John G]

Hello John.

"In my opinion, therefore, the rarity of this type of crime is sufficient to prove, on balance of probability, that the C5 victims plus Tabram were murdered by a single killer."

And by that reasoning, ALL 50 year old single malt comes from the same distillery in Scotland.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Still got the sense of humour I see!

In determining whether a series of crimes are connected a number of factors need to be considered. For instance, how rare are the crimes in question? In the case of Liz Stride, if we simply focus on the basic facts that she was murdered in Whitechapel, in the open, with her throat severely cut, then I would argue that this is a very rare crime for the period, indeed. In fact, as I have asked a number of times now, prior to 1888 are there any other examples of a victim being found in Whitechapel, in the open, i.e. rather than domestic surroundings, with their throat cut? Funnily enough I've yet to receive a single reply! Why, therefore, were/are these types of crimes so obviously rare? Answer: because very few people are capable of committing them.

Of course, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly were also prostitutes living in Whitechapel who had their throats cut, although I would concede that Kelly was killed indoors, although there is no evidence that this was a far more common domestic killing, and Eddowes was technically murdered just outside the Whitechapel border, which I don't consider significant.

Now I ask myself, what are the chances of not one but at least 2 killers emerging from the same small district, i.e.Whitechapel, in the same year, and capable of committing these same rare type of crimes? Additionally, what are the chances that they both decide to kill on the same night? Slim, and Slim's just left town!

In making a likely connection between two or more murders we need to consider similarities and differences. So what does the Stride murder have in common with the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly?

Firstly, they were all known prostitutes. Secondly, they were all killed in 1888. Thirdly, they all had their throats severely cut. Fourthly, there were no obvious suspects. Fifthly, with the exception of Kelly they were all murdered in a non-domestic setting. Sixthly, there is a strong indication that they all had their throats cut when they were on or near to the ground, indicating a strategy on behalf of the killer to avoid being covered in arterial spray,and possibly that the killer was experienced enough to have learned from past mistakes. Seventhly, their killer was cunning, or lucky, enough to escape justice. Eighthly, they were all killed in or near to Whitechapel, a small district geographically, with a population of only around 80,000.

And what were the essential differences? Stride wasn't mutilated.

I therefore consider it a legitimate exercise to consider various possibilities as to why Stride wasn't mutilated. Firstly, it was an impulsive kill and the killer had a knife inadequate for the purpose. Secondly, the killer was intoxicated, which impacted on his judgement/ knife-skills. Thirdly, he was concerned about Schwartz/Pipeman returning with help. Fourthly, he found himself in a narrow passageway, in near- pitch black darkness, with the wrong type of knife, so mutilating Stride to his satisfaction, and removing organs, would have been virtually impossible. Fifthly, Stride was not taken by surprise and was able to cry out for help, causing the killer to flea the scene. Sixthly, he was concerned about the presence of what appeared to be a busy club adjacent to the murder scene. Sevethly, he thought, wrongly, that he'd heard someone about to exit the club. Eightly, he was disturbed by Diemshitz. Ninethly, a combination of one or more of these factors.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive.

I therefore conclude that, on balance of probabilities, Stride was a Ripper victim.