Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[Darryl Kenyon]

I wanted to move the recent discussion on the IWEC thread to a separate one, so here goes .

If BSM killed Liz then there are certain points of conflict [ in my humble opinion ], within this theory.

1 - Schwartz saw a man stop and speak to Liz in the gateway of the club. He then attempted to pull her into the street . First red flag, would BSM actually do that if he intended on murdering Liz ? Why not push her into the darkened passage and attack her there. And if Liz did get in the club before he managed to subdue her, he still could have got away. Yes the same could be said of attacking Liz in the street but there, he is running the risk of someone like Mrs Mortimer seeing him or someone looking through the window from the upper floors of the club for instance.

2- Schwartz says he got as far as the gateway when he saw the altercation happen . Now he must have been more or less mere feet, if that, away from broad shoulders when he witnessed the assault. Again would the perpetrator then go on to deliberately murder Liz when he knows someone was very close to him at the start of the attack and probably got a decent look at him.

3- Schwartz crossed the street and saw pipeman . There seems to be little doubt that BSM saw pipeman as well, since Schwartz first thought the calling out of the word Lipski was aimed at the man with the pipe. Even if Lipski was aimed at Schwartz and not pipeman, again there can be little uncertainty that pipeman was not hid in any shadows etc, and viewable otherwise Schwartz would not think this. So in effect two witnesses.

4- Broad shoulders draws attention to himself by the cry of Lipski. Now are we really to believe he would do this if his main intention was to kill and mutilate poor Liz ?

The only scenario I can think of if BSM was Liz's killer is it was more manslaughter than premeditated murder IE The argument possibly escalated [ or Liz fought back ], and he struck out.
Trouble with this is there is little evidence for it . Liz was probably strangled, possibly by her scarf and then her throat cut swiftly and silently with no one hearing a sound, and yes those damned cachous in her hand plus no defence wounds .
If broad shoulders did kill Liz I would expect more of a full frontal assault with defence wounds , stabs by the knife, perhaps bruising on the face etc

BSM was not Jack, the whole scenario for the two to be one is wrong . Jack did not act the way BSM did [ pre murder ]. Yet if BSM was Liz's killer how come the killing was so similar to JTR. Again , strangulation, sudden and quick strike in the shadows , throat cut .

The answer is someone else murdered Liz that night other than BSM and the prime candidate is JTR.

Regards Darryl

[c.d.]

Good points and I agree. I would add that her clothes were not ripped which you would expect in a struggle or if she were dragged.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Darryl,

You might consider adding the fact that she didn’t scream out very loudly. This might suggest that she knew her assailant and didn’t fear for her life or perhaps the assailant was just drunkenly trying to persuade her to change her plans and go with him and a bit of pushing and pulling resulted in her ending up on the ground. Schwartz couldn’t speak English so he might have misunderstood the nature of this interaction?

[c.d.]

Yes, exactly. I recommend people revisit "A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter." As I stated in the thread, had I not understood English I would have considered the man to be the aggressor not the woman. I would have been completely wrong.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/elizabeth-stride/5121-a-modern-day-bs-man-liz-encounter

c.d.

[Filby]

I wanted to move the recent discussion on the IWEC thread to a separate one, so here goes .

If BSM killed Liz then there are certain points of conflict [ in my humble opinion ], within this theory.

1 - Schwartz saw a man stop and speak to Liz in the gateway of the club. He then attempted to pull her into the street . First red flag, would BSM actually do that if he intended on murdering Liz ? Why not push her into the darkened passage and attack her there. And if Liz did get in the club before he managed to subdue her, he still could have got away. Yes the same could be said of attacking Liz in the street but there, he is running the risk of someone like Mrs Mortimer seeing him or someone looking through the window from the upper floors of the club for instance.

2- Schwartz says he got as far as the gateway when he saw the altercation happen . Now he must have been more or less mere feet, if that, away from broad shoulders when he witnessed the assault. Again would the perpetrator then go on to deliberately murder Liz when he knows someone was very close to him at the start of the attack and probably got a decent look at him.

3- Schwartz crossed the street and saw pipeman . There seems to be little doubt that BSM saw pipeman as well, since Schwartz first thought the calling out of the word Lipski was aimed at the man with the pipe. Even if Lipski was aimed at Schwartz and not pipeman, again there can be little uncertainty that pipeman was not hid in any shadows etc, and viewable otherwise Schwartz would not think this. So in effect two witnesses.

4- Broad shoulders draws attention to himself by the cry of Lipski. Now are we really to believe he would do this if his main intention was to kill and mutilate poor Liz ?

The only scenario I can think of if BSM was Liz's killer is it was more manslaughter than premeditated murder IE The argument possibly escalated [ or Liz fought back ], and he struck out.
Trouble with this is there is little evidence for it . Liz was probably strangled, possibly by her scarf and then her throat cut swiftly and silently with no one hearing a sound, and yes those damned cachous in her hand plus no defence wounds .
If broad shoulders did kill Liz I would expect more of a full frontal assault with defence wounds , stabs by the knife, perhaps bruising on the face etc

BSM was not Jack, the whole scenario for the two to be one is wrong . Jack did not act the way BSM did [ pre murder ]. Yet if BSM was Liz's killer how come the killing was so similar to JTR. Again , strangulation, sudden and quick strike in the shadows , throat cut .

The answer is someone else murdered Liz that night other than BSM and the prime candidate is JTR.

Regards Darryl

Darryl;

Great points but I cannot put aside the low probability, even in WC during 1888, of a woman being fairly violently (the former not to mention the latter) physically assaulted by two different men in such a short time frame (15-20 minutes?) - which of course has been a key factor in BS man theory from what I've read from these forums and books. The only way I can be remotely convinced of a two-man theory is if Stride was scheduled to meet client JtR. I very much welcome any dissenting opinions as to why the above should prevail over probability.

[c.d.]

Hello Filby,

You have to consider the circumstances. Liz was not standing in front of a church in a crowd of people on a Sunday morning. She was a lone woman in a rough neighborhood standing by herself late at night right after the pubs closed when there would be a lot of drunken men on the street. There are "assaults" and there is "violence". But how much do those terms really apply when it appears she was simply thrown to the ground and we have no way to determine the intent of the B.S. man. He simply might have pulled harder than he meant to in an attempt to get her to move or she might have instigated the event by mouthing off to him.

So yes, the probability of two "attacks" in a short amount of time would seem low until you move past that idea and consider what actually took place.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

.....

BSM was not Jack, the whole scenario for the two to be one is wrong . Jack did not act the way BSM did [ pre murder ]. Yet if BSM was Liz's killer how come the killing was so similar to JTR. Again , strangulation, sudden and quick strike in the shadows , throat cut .

The answer is someone else murdered Liz that night other than BSM and the prime candidate is JTR.

Regards Darryl

I think the above misrepresents what a traditional Ripper murder would probably entail. It would include post mortem mutilation or the intent of doing it, it would have the victim lying down when first cut, the victim would have her legs spread, she would have her throat cut twice to lessen the blood from the additional cutting he wanted, he would not be seen with the victim prior to the act, nor still on the scene after it.

Liz Stride could have been cut once, while falling, and left untouched from that moment on. Blackwell said "I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground."

The only link to the Ripper is the presumption that Catherine Eddowes murder reveals that he was out and about that night. If JtR killed her, of course. But Strides murder, and the act itself... the knife used, are not what we could categorize as Ripperesque.

[c.d.]

I think the above misrepresents what a traditional Ripper murder would probably entail.

Based on an extremely small sample size and not taking into consideration that circumstances change as do killers.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I think the above misrepresents what a traditional Ripper murder would probably entail.

Based on an extremely small sample size and not taking into consideration that circumstances change as do killers.

c.d.

We both know that of all the murders assumed to be by JtR, this one is the anomaly. The consistencies seen in the "circumstances" of the other 4 assumed Ripper victims indicates that the post mortem mutilation objective was repetitive. I believe now is the time for you to suggest an interruption as the excuse for its absence, but the absence of any supporting evidence trumps that supposition.

[Losmandris]

I do not see BS as JtR. I would imagine this type of 'causal' violence was fairly common on the streets at that time, especially after the pubs had just closed. I would imagine a lot of very drunk people (not really eating anything and just drinking all night), who would be a a lot more prone to falling over. probably lots of harassment and pushing and shoving. I can see this was the case here. Some kind of altercation and Liz gets shoved over. Schwartz newly arrived in the country, sees it as something more than it is and this perspective gets passed on to us in modern times. This is why I think the police do make such a bit deal of this at the time.

This plus all the great points made above by Darryl Kenyon exonerates BSM I reckon.

[c.d.]

The fact that there are differences in the C5 tells us one thing and one thing only and that is....wait for it....that there are....well, differences. It does not necessarily mean that the murders were committed by different hands. They may well have been but that conclusion doesn't automatically follow just because there are differences.

As I pointed out before (and which you essentially ignored) is BTK. There was one of his murders that was so completely different in the M.O. that the police never even considered him as the killer. Even when he admitted it they were still reluctant to accept that he did it until he showed them personal items he had taken from the victim.

As for bringing up the interruption theory it would really be a waste of time as you refuse to even consider it.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Has anyone ever considered that the Cachou were drugged and induced Stride to pass out?

Then the killer gently lowers her down and cuts her throat... her hand still holding the drugged Cachou.

Is there a drug that could have induced syncope and was untraceable?

Stride, like her brother, suffered from Fits.

Could this have played a part in her demise?

It then opens up the possibility that the person who cut Strides throat wasn't the Ripper

RD

[c.d.]

No, no one has considered that.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

When you build on sand cd....

The fact that there are differences in the C5 tells us one thing and one thing only and that is....wait for it....that there are....well, differences. It does not necessarily mean that the murders were committed by different hands. They may well have been but that conclusion doesn't automatically follow just because there are differences.

Non-one disputes that there are quite a few circumstantial and physical differences in the C5 list, just like almost everyone knows that the C5 itself is not an established "series" by a single killer. And no-one has ever seriously suggested that Liz Strides murder appears to have been done by a "Ripper". They instead suggest, as you do, that the lack of Ripper features might just be due to some kind of interruption that again, isnt indicated within any known evidence concerning this murder. I dont recall anyone suggesting that the Ripper sometimes doesnt rip, but hey, Ive seen wilder ideas here before.

As I pointed out before (and which you essentially ignored) is BTK. There was one of his murders that was so completely different in the M.O. that the police never even considered him as the killer. Even when he admitted it they were still reluctant to accept that he did it until he showed them personal items he had taken from the victim.

I do ignore suggestions that Jack the Ripper, being so named by the very acts he committed, committed a simple 1 cut murder that in its entirety might have lasted 2 seconds. Jack the Ripper didnt just kill, he killed so he could cut. Murder was just a precursor, not the ultimate goal.

c.d.

Someone wanted to mortally wound Liz, thats the only killers objective that is within the knowns.

[Michael W Richards]

In almost every murder investigation Ive come across since studying these crimes, the motivation for the crime seems to be the most pertinent to solving them. We can say with a high level of certainty that Annie Chapmans killer was primarily motivated by a desire to mutilate, to cut into human flesh. Its within the physical evidence, the circumstantial, and the medical opinion. Now....Liz Stride. What was the apparent motivation for her murder? There really isnt one apparent other than she died because her killer wanted to cut her throat.