Three cases of interruption?

[perrymason]

@ caz:

But the only evidence that indicates Stride as a Ripper victim is the sole fact that Jack was in Aldgate (or thereabouts) shortly after her death and that Eddowes was killed on the same night. That's just a coincidence as far as the actual physical evidence tells us; the throat wounds are completely different. Jack was a little bit cocky in the sense that he did his thing outside, but I doubt he was so deluded as to attempt to mutilate someone in that yard; he would've ran enormous risk of being caught. Was he really so uncontrolled that he would do something so reckless as that? Going by his previous kills, I'd say no; he did not want to be caught. If Jack was interrupted at any one of the canonical murders, it would've been with Polly. Stride (and more so Tabram) seem like the work of different killers.

M and P,

In case you didnt know.. the Coroner at Mary Ann's Inquest suggested that very thing....that he was unable to finish and thats why he chose behind a house, instead of in front of one, for his next victim Annie. So he could finish...and he gets a perfectly intact uterus as a reward for his choice.

Polly has her abdomen opened but no organs taken, and since perhaps the next two consecutive victims have the same attack MO, the same type wounds and also organs taken, you might have evidence that he was stopped prematurely with Polly.

In Liz Strides demeanor and single wound there is nothing that would suggest anything was "stopped", or halted by her killer. If anything, her act of murder seems to be a single goal unto itself...by all the physical evidence....that says no-one even touched her after the throat cut. Her clothes were not disturbed at all.

Best regards.

[Tom_Wescott]

But in Hanbury Street, the people who lived in those rooms were asleep. In the Berner Street yard people were very active in that club; it was a lot more riskier than the venue of Chapman's murder. That's what I'm saying.

Asleep for how much longer? The sun was coming up and the only privvies were in the yard with him! To get to them the people would have to walk right past him in the door, potentially blocking his escape. In Berner Street, they'd come out the side door and not even be able to see him in the dark. Bottom line is, a killer who would kill someone in the backyard of a crowded house would do so in a noisy house. But he might not stick around long enough to mutilate her extensively.

Stride was killed by a stranger, with no struggle, in a dark yard, within the same hour as a bonafide Ripper victim. How so many people can so easily accept this as a one-off is beyond me. Especially when murders such as Stride's were exceptionally rare outside of the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"The two killings are exceptionally similar."

Well, there was that small matter of an evisceration in Hanbury Street, but who am I to fault you, Tom?

The best,
Fisherman

[andy.s]

to the novice like myself it does seem a massive coincidence that the 2 murders should occur in the same area ..at around the same time..
what are the chances of that?
i honestly have no idea how prevalent such murders were in the east end of london at the time, and maybe someone could enlighten me if they happened every half hour or so...if not
i can only suppose they were comitted by the same maniac....

[Monty]

Stride was killed by a stranger,...

Is that a fact or assumption?

Either way, Id like to hear the logic/evidence behind it.

Monty

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Asleep for how much longer? The sun was coming up and the only privvies were in the yard with him! To get to them the people would have to walk right past him in the door, potentially blocking his escape.

That's what I thought at first but I'm not too convinced that Jack did kill Annie in the early morning after all, and more probably had done it at around 2 or 3 a.m instead. The 'witness' who needed a slash ventured into the yard, heard 'no' (whether it was conversationally or otherwise), headed back inside and then when he came back for another piss he then heard something fall against the fence, about 5 minutes later (I could be wrong on the exact timing). It's a little convenient and seems like he and the other witness who allegedly saw Annie with the foreign-looking shabby genteel, who she saw from behind, were both just wanting to be a part of this big 'event'. The witnesses in that case don't seem all that reliable as they're being made out to be. It would also make more sense that Jack would've killed Annie an hour or so earlier than estimated as it would've been darker and given him more privacy. If he did go to work on Chapman's body at around 5 a.m. then he would've been seen by at least one person, even fleetingly. But nothing. Even still, there's a very big difference between the possibility of being caught at Hanbury Street and the almost certainty of being caught at Berner Street. I just don't think Jack was that reckless.

@ perrymason: Exactly. It doesn't seem like the work of an eviscerator in the slightest. Wouldn't there have been signs of at least Stride's skirts being lifted or something if she was one of Jack's little jobs? That among other things is what makes me seriously doubt her as a Ripper victim.

[Fisherman]

Andy. S writes:

"to the novice like myself it does seem a massive coincidence that the 2 murders should occur in the same area ..at around the same time.."

Of course it was a coincidence. But there were not two women killed by having their throats cut in London that evening, Andy - there were three. And we KNOW that number three was not the Rippers. But according to you, she must have been...?
If we were to work along such lines, it would be free for anybody else than the Ripper to kill on "his" evenings. And Whitechapel was riddled with violent crime, very much of it involving knives!

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, but was the third woman a prostitute?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Hi c.d.

Was Stride prostituting herself whan she was killed? Much speaks against it!

The Ripper was not targetting women cause they were prostitutes - he was targetting prostitutes cause they were women. Preferably weak, feeble, drunk women.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Was Stride prostituting herself whan she was killed? Much speaks against it!

Apart from the numerous men she was seen with.

But they could've just been boyfriends or mates, so that's not exactly proof, you're right.

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

Stride was a known prostitute whereas the other woman you mention was not. If two prostitutes were killed by having their throats cut within a short time and distance of each other, it might be a coincidence but a hell of a coincidence nonetheless.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

MP,

You're comfortable tossing away Cadosche and Long as witnesses based on absolutely nothing, but are not comfortable accepting Liz Stride as a Ripper murder? A little out of balance, one might say.

Fishheads,

Stride was a prostitute, so it's likely she was in fact out prostituting herself. That morning she was cleaning for money, so she was in money-making mode.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

MP,

You're comfortable tossing away Cadosche and Long as witnesses based on absolutely nothing

Definitely not for nothing; I wouldn't do that. They're not as reliable as they're cut out to be, that's all. How can Long tell that the man Chapman was allegedly seen with was foreign just by looking at him from behind, and determine his age range? It's a bit specific for a quick glance at his back. And if I remember rightly - correct me if I'm wrong, she didn't mention her sighting of Chapman or identify her (I can't remember which it was but it was either of those) right away until probably details about her were released to the press (I'm presuming later that day or even the next). How can you take her word as 'absolute' truth? I'd take her sighting with a pinch of salt. Cadosche, okay, but it does seem a little too convenient to me and I'm fairly certain that Jack wouldn't have killed Chapman while everyone was on the verge of waking up.

[Tom_Wescott]

Albert Cadosche had to go to the press and tell the world about his morning bowel movements and lost work and money by appearing at the inquest (which he complained quite a bit about), so I doubt he'd agree his testimony was 'convenient'. Had he been fabricating it, he would have included more detail. As for Long, I agree that we must take her description with some salt, but she was asked for her impression of the man and she gave it. She was honest that she didn't get a good look at him. Again, had she been making the ordeal up, she would have given more detail.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Valid enough point about Cadosche I suppose; though his little added touch to the murder could've backfired. But I don't think Long could've elaborated any further on her character any more than she did without making it unbelievable like Hutchinson, having told whoever that she saw him from behind; I think the man she alledged to have seen is very detailed considering.