Abberline solved the GSG

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Even if the BS man were arrested, given the nature of Whitechapel and its inhabitants, he might not face any punishment at all other than a warning not to do it again.

Absolutely no way. Not in that climate, at such a location, and with the knowledge that prostitutes were being brutally murdered on the streets of Whitechapel. Anyone suspected of attacking a prostitute in the small hours of the morning was guaranteed to be investigated very seriously indeed as a suspect in those murders, not just the Stride attack. Eliminating a crucial witness such as Stride would therefore have been to the ripper's obvious advantage.

As for being paraded before other witnesses, why kill Liz when he has also been seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man?

Because he was probably too intent on his original plan and, as above, didn't want her to remain a witness. Even if he didn't kill her, Schwarz and pipeman always had the potential to implicate him in the ripper murders if ever he was spotted again and arrested for the attack.

All the best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

But this "attack" that you speak of, according to Schwartz, consisted only of pushing a woman to the ground. Even if the BS man were arrested, given the nature of Whitechapel and its inhabitants, he might not face any punishment at all other than a warning not to do it again. That would certainly argue against any necessity for killing her.

As for being paraded before other witnesses, why kill Liz when he has also been seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man?

c.d.

[Ben]

Ben is likely used to getting caught in the crossfire

You are, generally speaking, more "fired upon" than I am, mate, no offense.

And the idea that BS killed Stride has considerably more popularity and mainstream support than the idea that he didn't.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Inform them of what? That he was the one who pushed her to the ground? It makes absolutely no sense that he would kill her ( and thus risk hanging) to prevent her from informing on him for something that was probably not even punishable.

I think this presumes far too much insight into the killer's mentality, and doesn't seem terrible consistent with the ripper's proven capacity for risk. It makes huge sense, perfect sense, for him to kill her if he was a) too emotionally intent on doing so (if he wasn't, he probably would have suppressed his urge to kill anyone in the first place), and b) wary of the consequences of allowing the woman he attacked to live. As I explained to Jon, if the real ripper was hauled in as a consequence of being identified by Stride as her attacker, there was a genuine risk of him being paraded before other witnesses from previous murders.

But the bottom line is that unless Schwartz was lying or an astonishingly unlikely coincidence occurred, BS man was Stride's killer.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

You talk about Stride being a potentially incriminating witness but a witness to what exactly?

c.d.

[Ben]

So if Schwartz didn't cause him to abort (apparently not you say?), then who did?

I think there is a realistic possibility that Schwartz caused him to abort going through with the mutilations for fear that he would return promptly with a policeman before he had a chance to complete them. He still had ample time to dispatch Stride (thus dispensing of a potentially very incriminating witness) and make good his escape before a PC on beat could arrive.

He pushed and pulled her, and knocked her to the ground. This was not an uncommon occurrence in the rough East End.

Which wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't the ripper, and therefore didn't have to worry about his little aborted near-miss with Stride resulting in an arrest as a ripper suspect and being compared to other eyewitnesses.

However, if he was...

All indications are that Stride was taken completely by surprise, no threats, no warnings, she had no idea what was about to happen.

No.

No indications point that way.

Eyewitness evidence in the form of Schwartz indicates that an attack took place around the time she was murdered. Every ounce of common sense should therefore inform us that the two were probably linked, and that BS was almost certainly Stride's killer. If you don't find that behaviour consistent with Jack, then you're better off arguing that Stride wasn't killed by Jack.

[c.d.]

Thats ok C.D., Ben is likely used to getting caught in the crossfire

Problem is he fires back.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Ben.

"it can be argued very persuasively that he was already too far mentally committed to the deed to abort at the last moment."

Which makes an excellent argument against interruption.

Cheers.
LC

If he was that committed to the deed and was just too far gone to stop, wouldn't we expect Liz's body to be found on the exact same spot where Schwartz saw her being pushed to the ground?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Wickerman. Looks like our posts crossed.

c.d.

Thats ok C.D., Ben is likely used to getting caught in the crossfire

[c.d.]

Sorry, Wickerman. Looks like our posts crossed.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.
My memory sucks too, so you're not alone.

First, as I've pointed out, because Stride was also a witness. And his target.

Witness to what though Dave?
(as to his target, maybe, maybe not)

(Let me call BSM the Marschwartz Man.)
Second, because in September 30, what Schwartz had seen could be enough to call a policeman.

So he kills her to avoid being accused of knocking her down?

Think about this : if there was nothing frightful, why did Schwartz ran away ? So quickly and so far ? And why going to the police on the morrow ?

Schwartz only claimed to run from Pipeman, not BSman.
He only stepped off the curb away from BSman to avoid the ensuing struggle, but the appearance of Pipeman, for whatever reason, caused him to run.

Wouldn't he go to the police once he heard about a murder occurring at the same spot he saw the aggravation?

[c.d.]

On BS killing Stride despite being seen by witnesses; I suppose it depends on whether BS was a one-off killer or the the actual ripper. If the latter, it can be argued very persuasively that he was already too far mentally committed to the deed to abort at the last moment. An additional consideration is the perceived necessity to dispatch the most important and most incriminating witness of all, i.e. Stride herself had he allowed her to live, thereafter to inform the police, press and public.

Hello Ben,

It wasn't just that he was seen by witnesses, it was that one of those witnesses ran off presumably to get the nearest policeman. He would have had to have been pretty far gone indeed not to take that into consideration.

Inform them of what? That he was the one who pushed her to the ground? It makes absolutely no sense that he would kill her ( and thus risk hanging) to prevent her from informing on him for something that was probably not even punishable.

Even if he had told her that he was the Ripper, he could always say that he was just trying to scare her.

I just don't see the BS man as her killer.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

On BS killing Stride despite being seen by witnesses; I suppose it depends on whether BS was a one-off killer or the the actual ripper. If the latter, it can be argued very persuasively that he was already too far mentally committed to the deed to abort at the last moment.

Well, it can be argued, but I'm not so sure about the "persuasive" bit.
I mean, if he was the same killer who mutilates, he did abort, didn't he.
So if Schwartz didn't cause him to abort (apparently not you say?), then who did?

An additional consideration is the perceived necessity to dispatch the most important and most incriminating witness of all, i.e. Stride herself had he allowed her to live, thereafter to inform the police, press and public.

Incriminating?
He pushed and pulled her, and knocked her to the ground. This was not an uncommon occurrence in the rough East End. As is indicated by one reporter describing the fracas as looking like a marital dispute.

He could hardly have confessed to her he was Jack the Ripper, she'd have asked, "who the hell is that?".

All indications are that Stride was taken completely by surprise, no threats, no warnings, she had no idea what was about to happen.
This is consistent with the killer being someone else other than BSman.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Haven't we had this exchange before?

Could be, my youth. Don't you know I'm much older than Lynn ?

The question arose, why kill her?

Fact is that in all probability, he did.
And why kill Nichols and Chapman ?

BSman is seen assaulting Stride, you don't hang for pushing a streetwalker down on her ass, so Schwartz only witnesses an assault.

First, as I've pointed out, because Stride was also a witness. And his target. (Let me call BSM the Marschwartz Man.)
Second, because in September 30, what Schwartz had seen could be enough to call a policeman.

Think about this : if there was nothing frightful, why did Schwartz ran away ? So quickly and so far ? And why going to the police on the morrow ?

There was no need to do this, ie; "careless in the extreme".

No, Jon. If you're "careless in the extreme", you don't kill people in the street.

[lynn cates]

interruption

Hello Ben.

"it can be argued very persuasively that he was already too far mentally committed to the deed to abort at the last moment."

Which makes an excellent argument against interruption.

Cheers.
LC