Broad Shoulders, Elizabeth's Killer ?

[c.d.]

I am not sure what you mean by a "real interruption.?" Do you mean an actual person? An interruption could have come from any source such as the sound of a door opening or maybe the cessation of singing. Could be anything. And we can't rule out plain old paranoia with no source at all except his own thoughts. He could have felt the club venue was a bad choice right from the get go but chose to go through with it anyway overcome by his desire to kill. Then once he has accomplished this common sense might have kicked in and he heard a voice in his head saying this is not a safe place to be.

As for a Cadosch scenario, that implies that his mind set and emotions were set in stone and never varied from kill to kill. He might have been ballsy on one occasion but that doesn't mean that that had to be the norm. Circumstances change and so do emotions and thoughts.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Jeff,

Yes, I think the timing for another person (her killer) to come along would be very tight but I also think doable.

c.d.

[FISHY1118]

I am not sure what you mean by a "real interruption.?" Do you mean an actual person? An interruption could have come from any source such as the sound of a door opening or maybe the cessation of singing. Could be anything. And we can't rule out plain old paranoia with no source at all except his own thoughts. He could have felt the club venue was a bad choice right from the get go but chose to go through with it anyway overcome by his desire to kill. Then once he has accomplished this common sense might have kicked in and he heard a voice in his head saying this is not a safe place to be.

As for a Cadosch scenario, that implies that his mind set and emotions were set in stone and never varied from kill to kill. He might have been ballsy on one occasion but that doesn't mean that that had to be the norm. Circumstances change and so do emotions and thoughts.

c.d.

So I guess all things being equal , your point and mine are both valid possibilities? one is not more likely than the other.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I’m expressing myself perfectly clearly so I’m struggling to understand why you’re having difficult. I'll recap.

When I was talking about a newspaper report I was referring to the one that mentioned doubt from Leman Street and not in connection with the use of the word ‘screamed.’

Fair enough, it's just that your comment appears as a response to my comment regarding screams, not the Leman St report.

On the use of the word ‘screamed’ I have suggested (as have others) that as the evidence tells us that no one heard the incident, and the evidence tells us that some sounds were made, and the evidence tells us that those sounds weren’t very loud that these things are therefore self-explanatory. No heard because the incident wasn’t very loud. I also suggest (as do others) that the word ‘screamed’ does seem a strange or inappropriate choice of word as dictionary definitions tells us that screams are always loud.

The evidence suggests there were no screams to be heard.

It has also been pointed out by myself (and others) that ‘screamed but not very loudly’ is not really a phrase that a natural English speaker would use. But, as we know, Schwartz could speak no English and was using an interpreter (not only an interpreter but one whose competence we can’t judge - for all that we know he may have had just a smattering of Hungarian - or as the phrase goes ‘enough to get by.) So a very plausible, indeed likely, explanation is that the poor use of this word comes from a poor use of English.

If the word 'screams' seems inappropriate, we can ask a very simple question; Was Abberline correct in putting that word into his report?

Abberline stated that he questioned Schwartz very closely regarding the use of the word 'Lipski'. He does not seem to have regarding the word 'screams'. Was this an oversight you believe should be corrected with your "very plausible, indeed likely, explanation"?

The Leman Street suggestion of there being doubts about Schwartz story are about as weak and tenuous as possible. Who did the journalist speak to (possibly some Constable earning a few pennies as backhander?) How much did that person actually know about the investigation? Were beat Constable’s party to the current thinking by those leading the investigation?

So, you believe this story is fake news. That's very convenient but the Star of Oct 2, tells that they are getting reports from Superintendent Forster of the City Police, and "at the time when the Star man made the rounds of the police stations this morning the detectives had come to a standstill". They are talking to numerous police of various ranks from both police forces.

Were they talking about Schwartz evidence or were they talking about having doubts about it leading to an arrest? The most important thing is that Abberline and those actually conducting the investigation continued to treat Schwartz as an important witness.

And of course, as this report was 48 hours after the murder it’s entirely possible that there could have been initial doubts which disappeared after they were looked into.

This is pretty feeble. Doubting the truth of the story and being not likely to act further without additional information, is not something that could be mistaken for doubting that arrests could be made, without a motivation to misunderstand what is being said. Ditto the doubts disappearing after being looked into. The doubts were not evident when the Star went to press on the Monday evening. They were by the time a reporter spoke to a Leman St based detective, on Tuesday morning. So, something has happened in between. We have the choice of trying to work out what that something was or sweeping all this under the carpet.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hello Jeff,

Yes, I think the timing for another person (her killer) to come along would be very tight but I also think doable.

c.d.

It will be interesting to see where and when witnesses are moved to, to make this doable.

If not doable, then what? You're left trying squeeze BS into the role of killer. Either that or conceding that this man never existed.

[GBinOz]

The Leman Street suggestion of there being doubts about Schwartz story are about as weak and tenuous as possible. Who did the journalist speak to (possibly some Constable earning a few pennies as backhander?) How much did that person actually know about the investigation? Were beat Constable’s party to the current thinking by those leading the investigation? Were they talking about Schwartz evidence or were they talking about having doubts about it leading to an arrest? The most important thing is that Abberline and those actually conducting the investigation continued to treat Schwartz as an important witness

Hi Herlock,

I think you have pinpointed a major question here. Schwartz originally thought he was observing a domestic. Low volume "screams" would tend to support his supposition. One man was arrested based on Schwartz's description, and another after that. If the statements made by these men supported Schwartz's view of the incident being a domestic, then the police may have had doubts about its actual relationship to Stride's murder. Hence their statement that they would not be pursuing Schwartz's story unless further evidence came to light.

The signatures of JtR's M.O. were the throat cut, the mutilations and the stealth. I don't see BSman's actions as fitting the "stealth" component. If Parcelman was also Jeff's "kissing man" from the Bricklayers Arms, I suspect he would also fail the stealth test. Although Pipeman was also seen and described, he could have used a rescuer scenario for an opportunistic kill that would be blamed on BSman. My current suspicion is an unknown third party, although I find Eagle and Goldstein to be worthy of further consideration.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Herlock,

I think you have pinpointed a major question here. Schwartz originally thought he was observing a domestic. Low volume "screams" would tend to support his supposition. One man was arrested based on Schwartz's description, and another after that. If the statements made by these men supported Schwartz's view of the incident being a domestic, then the police may have had doubts about its actual relationship to Stride's murder. Hence their statement that they would not be pursuing Schwartz's story unless further evidence came to light.

The signatures of JtR's M.O. were the throat cut, the mutilations and the stealth. I don't see BSman's actions as fitting the "stealth" component. If Parcelman was also Jeff's "kissing man" from the Bricklayers Arms, I suspect he would also fail the stealth test. Although Pipeman was also seen and described, he could have used a rescuer scenario for an opportunistic kill that would be blamed on BSman. My current suspicion is an unknown third party, although I find Eagle and Goldstein to be worthy of further consideration.

Cheers, George

Excellent post as always George, very balanced and well considered.

I think Lave is also worth further consideration.


I also think that stealth plays a key part of Ripper kills.


One thing to note about the murder of Stride; she wasn't just murdered, she was executed.


For a person to almost decapitate someone with one solitary stab, hook, slice and cut motion would need to know what they were doing. No sign of struggle or any kind of reaction from Stride; it's as though she was carefully placed down and deliberately positioned with a degree of calculated precision; perhaps to ensure her blood trail run towards the club door and end in a pool of blood.
If Stride had died as a result of BS man's assault, then she would have been found sprawled out, with defensive wounds, ruffled hair and cachou spilled all over the yard.

The kill was clean, calm and silent.

Certainly not a victim of a drunk man or a lunatic suffering from some kind of psychotic episode.

The murder of Stride IMO is akin to a professional killer dispatching a mark.

It's almost as though she was lured there to be silenced.

[FISHY1118]

Like due to the fact B.S tried to pull her into the street and she wouldnt go, so he kills her ? That kinda silence?

[FrankO]

He could have felt the club venue was a bad choice right from the get go but chose to go through with it anyway overcome by his desire to kill. Then once he has accomplished this common sense might have kicked in and he heard a voice in his head saying this is not a safe place to be.

Hi c.d.,

This is the only way that I could see the Ripper as the murderer: that his desire to kill was just too strong, despite the risk he saw with the club yard. But, to me, that wouldn’t fit very well either, as my view is that his driving force was his desire to mutilate, not to just kill. But it could have been a matter of something like: oh, the hell with it, I’ll just settle for killing this one, then and find myself another one to mutilate.

As for a Cadosch scenario, that implies that his mind set and emotions were set in stone and never varied from kill to kill. He might have been ballsy on one occasion but that doesn't mean that that had to be the norm. Circumstances change and so do emotions and thoughts.

I certainly agree that circumstances from murder to murder would not have been the same, and in part also his thoughts and emotions, but I don’t think his ultimate desire differed between one murder and the next. Of course, we might argue about what his ultimate desire would have been or how strong it would have been, but that would have been, basically, the same with every murder.


The best,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Like due to the fact B.S tried to pull her into the street and she wouldnt go, so he kills her ? That kinda silence?

That's the point right there.


Bs man either...



Was her killer, but he wasn't the Ripper

Wasn't her killer

Didn't exist


All 3 of those scenarios are more likely than...

Bs Man was her killer AND the Ripper.


To believe that BS Man was the Ripper, is to have a contorted understanding of how a killer like the Ripper works.

Of course, there's always the argument...

"Well we don't know who the Ripper was!"

... ergo, he could have been Bs Man; a drunken thug who assaulted a woman in a public street and shouted abuse at a passing "witness."

I've never been a fan of this Multi-Universe nonsense, whereby anything can happen and anything can be possible.

The moment we believe that BS man could have been the Ripper, is to choose to accept anything and everything.

I can understand that it's a way of keeping hold of the clutter so to speak, but some things have to be considered more likely than others, working with levels of probability and viability based on what little evidence we do have.

Believing BS man was the Ripper is akin to having your cake and eating it.

Generally speaking (NOT referring to your kind self)... it's the the sort of mindset that believes that everyone can be saved and everyone can be rehabilitated. In other words, all options are on the table despite Science and Math suggesting otherwise.

That's not a bad thing of course, but sometimes it's okay to have the courage to consider ruling things out.

If we believe that every single witness was correct and honest and every suspect could have been the Ripper, then the case becomes saturated and bogged down with nonsensical hypotheses.

For example...
Bs man was more likely to have been a killer than Lechmere

But Lechmere was more likely than BS Man to have been the Ripper.


But when we analyse the idea that Bs Man or Lechmere were the Ripper; it's fairly clear that NEITHER of them were the killer.

But i accept that there's always the "Yeah, but you don't know that!'

True, I don't.

But there's always going to be those who will argue and counter everything just for the sake of it.

Arguing that 2 plus 2 doesn't have to be 4, kind of thing.

Again, generally speaking (NOT you) ...sometimes its perfectly okay to be wrong... i do it all the time and it's rather liberating as it keeps me grounded.


Unless of course the Ripper deliberately disguised himself as a drunk and chose to attack his prey in front of a witness and shout out without fear of being heard by others, and effectively 'double bluff" us into thinking he wasn't the Ripper when he actually was?

That is simply not the case and the evidence indicates that BS Man's choice of behavior and actions, are not in any way related to how a serial killer would operate, especially considering ALL the Ripper's other kills were silent and secretive.
The idea that a serial killer would want to disguise his own work is again completely against all understanding we have on how serial killers work and their respective M.O's.

Wait for it...


"Yeah, but we don't know he was a serial killer!"

...

But anyway...


The Ripper took joy in 'displaying' his victims to cause torment to those who found them...unlike Stride who was hidden and carefully placed in the dark.

The murder of Stride being a victim of Bs man AND Bs Man being the Ripper, goes against all we know and all that we understand.

Of course, everyone is entitled to have their own beliefs on whether they think BS Man was also the Ripper.

I accept that there's always going to be those who try and Ice skate uphill and I take my hat off to those who go against everything just for the sake of it.

Stride may have indeed been murdered by BS Man...but if she was...then she wasn't a Ripper victim.


Wait for it...


"Yeah, but we don't know she was murdered!"


Eek!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair enough, it's just that your comment appears as a response to my comment regarding screams, not the Leman St report.



The evidence suggests there were no screams to be heard.

The evidence suggests that Schwartz, Pipeman, BSMan and Stride herself would have heard them. And even if something goes unheard we should assume that it never occurred.


If the word 'screams' seems inappropriate, we can ask a very simple question; Was Abberline correct in putting that word into his report?

Abberline stated that he questioned Schwartz very closely regarding the use of the word 'Lipski'. He does not seem to have regarding the word 'screams'. Was this an oversight you believe should be corrected with your "very plausible, indeed likely, explanation"?

Yes, because he was relaying the word that was used by the interpreter. At the time he possibly thought little of it. Perhaps he even expected some witness come forward and say that they heard something.

So, you believe this story is fake news. That's very convenient but the Star of Oct 2, tells that they are getting reports from Superintendent Forster of the City Police, and "at the time when the Star man made the rounds of the police stations this morning the detectives had come to a standstill". They are talking to numerous police of various ranks from both police forces.

Coming to a standstill doesn’t reflect on Schwartz honesty. If they couldn’t find Pipeman or BSMan (which could hardly have been surprising) where else could the police have gone on this one.


This is pretty feeble. Doubting the truth of the story and being not likely to act further without additional information, is not something that could be mistaken for doubting that arrests could be made, without a motivation to misunderstand what is being said. Ditto the doubts disappearing after being looked into. The doubts were not evident when the Star went to press on the Monday evening. They were by the time a reporter spoke to a Leman St based detective, on Tuesday morning. So, something has happened in between. We have the choice of trying to work out what that something was or sweeping all this under the carpet.

When you say “trying to work out what that something was…” what you mean is to begin weaving fiction in the absence of any actual evidence. We don’t know who the reporter spoke to. We don’t that officer (or more than one officer’s) motivation was. We don’t know what he actually meant because it’s so vague. Wouldn’t the Press have loved an opportunity of making the Police look hopeless?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think you have pinpointed a major question here. Schwartz originally thought he was observing a domestic. Low volume "screams" would tend to support his supposition. One man was arrested based on Schwartz's description, and another after that. If the statements made by these men supported Schwartz's view of the incident being a domestic, then the police may have had doubts about its actual relationship to Stride's murder. Hence their statement that they would not be pursuing Schwartz's story unless further evidence came to light.

The signatures of JtR's M.O. were the throat cut, the mutilations and the stealth. I don't see BSman's actions as fitting the "stealth" component. If Parcelman was also Jeff's "kissing man" from the Bricklayers Arms, I suspect he would also fail the stealth test. Although Pipeman was also seen and described, he could have used a rescuer scenario for an opportunistic kill that would be blamed on BSman. My current suspicion is an unknown third party, although I find Eagle and Goldstein to be worthy of further consideration.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

As we don’t know what was actually said your suggestion is a possible even though not many rate the possibility of a killer stepping in after BSMan had gone. Is it really that unlikely though? What if Pipeman was involved, as you suggest? Perhaps Stride was waiting for Pipeman but she’d run into BSMan earlier that evening (seen by Marshall) BSMan tries again to get Stride to go with him but Pipeman shows up. What if Pipeman warned him off and he fled the scene in the same direction as Schwartz but in the confusion Schwartz thought that it was Pipeman that had fled. I don’t think that he’d have wasted much time looking over his shoulder to get an accurate description. Pipeman goes over to Stride and asks “who was that then? She says “no one.” Then jealousy followed by the knife.

Maybe we can now add another possible scenario George.

[Sunny Delight]

Hi George,

As we don’t know what was actually said your suggestion is a possible even though not many rate the possibility of a killer stepping in after BSMan had gone. Is it really that unlikely though? What if Pipeman was involved, as you suggest? Perhaps Stride was waiting for Pipeman but she’d run into BSMan earlier that evening (seen by Marshall) BSMan tries again to get Stride to go with him but Pipeman shows up. What if Pipeman warned him off and he fled the scene in the same direction as Schwartz but in the confusion Schwartz thought that it was Pipeman that had fled. I don’t think that he’d have wasted much time looking over his shoulder to get an accurate description. Pipeman goes over to Stride and asks “who was that then? She says “no one.” Then jealousy followed by the knife.

Maybe we can now add another possible scenario George.

I think it is very far fetched to believe that Pipeman was in any way involved in Stride's murder. It is clear from the information we have that Schwartz felt Pipeman had followed him. That is all we know. To insert him as possibly returning or having planned to meet Stride beforehand is based on absolutely nothing, with all due respect. We could apply such scenarios to absolutely anything.

A lot is made of BS man interaction with Stride. The idea being that the Ripper was so stealthy it appears out of character to have assaulted Stride as he did. I don't see it that way. Firstly, on the evidence we have the Ripper appears to have conversed with Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes, if we believe the witnesses. These women were desperate and appeared to be conciliatory towards his requests. Eddowes held a hand flirtatiously on his chest, Chapman responds 'yes' to the question, will you? and if we believe Hutchinson he basically charmed Kelly with one liners.

Maybe Stride was not so desperate. Maybe she was much less amenable to his request. Maybe she did not respond in the way the Ripper expected and he lashed out. Why did BS man react as he did? We will never know. But a frustration on not being responded to as the Ripper had been by previous victims possibly played a part.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I think it is very far fetched to believe that Pipeman was in any way involved in Stride's murder. It is clear from the information we have that Schwartz felt Pipeman had followed him. That is all we know. To insert him as possibly returning or having planned to meet Stride beforehand is based on absolutely nothing, with all due respect. We could apply such scenarios to absolutely anything.

I agree with this, however it doesn't explain why Pipeman didn't come forward to the police. Stride has already met Parcelman, either as planned or accidently. Why he didn't come forward is perhaps self-explanatory. We could explain Pipeman not coming forward by supposing that his meeting with Stride has already occurred - in other words that he is Parcelman.

A lot is made of BS man interaction with Stride. The idea being that the Ripper was so stealthy it appears out of character to have assaulted Stride as he did. I don't see it that way. Firstly, on the evidence we have the Ripper appears to have conversed with Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes, if we believe the witnesses. These women were desperate and appeared to be conciliatory towards his requests. Eddowes held a hand flirtatiously on his chest, Chapman responds 'yes' to the question, will you? and if we believe Hutchinson he basically charmed Kelly with one liners.

The Chapman interaction always sounds theatrical to me. That is, fake.

Maybe Stride was not so desperate. Maybe she was much less amenable to his request. Maybe she did not respond in the way the Ripper expected and he lashed out. Why did BS man react as he did? We will never know. But a frustration on not being responded to as the Ripper had been by previous victims possibly played a part.

Presumably Stride wasn't the only woman to reject his requests. Do we have any other evidence that suggests a man has reacted violently to a rejection?

If you suppose BS Man to have been JtR, why do suppose Pipeman did not come forward and make a statement regarding his close encounter with a serial killer?

[Abby Normal]

That's the point right there.


Bs man either...



Was her killer, but he wasn't the Ripper

Wasn't her killer

Didn't exist


All 3 of those scenarios are more likely than...

Bs Man was her killer AND the Ripper.


To believe that BS Man was the Ripper, is to have a contorted understanding of how a killer like the Ripper works.

Of course, there's always the argument...

"Well we don't know who the Ripper was!"

... ergo, he could have been Bs Man; a drunken thug who assaulted a woman in a public street and shouted abuse at a passing "witness."

I've never been a fan of this Multi-Universe nonsense, whereby anything can happen and anything can be possible.

The moment we believe that BS man could have been the Ripper, is to choose to accept anything and everything.

I can understand that it's a way of keeping hold of the clutter so to speak, but some things have to be considered more likely than others, working with levels of probability and viability based on what little evidence we do have.

Believing BS man was the Ripper is akin to having your cake and eating it.

Generally speaking (NOT referring to your kind self)... it's the the sort of mindset that believes that everyone can be saved and everyone can be rehabilitated. In other words, all options are on the table despite Science and Math suggesting otherwise.

That's not a bad thing of course, but sometimes it's okay to have the courage to consider ruling things out.

If we believe that every single witness was correct and honest and every suspect could have been the Ripper, then the case becomes saturated and bogged down with nonsensical hypotheses.

For example...
Bs man was more likely to have been a killer than Lechmere

But Lechmere was more likely than BS Man to have been the Ripper.


But when we analyse the idea that Bs Man or Lechmere were the Ripper; it's fairly clear that NEITHER of them were the killer.

But i accept that there's always the "Yeah, but you don't know that!'

True, I don't.

But there's always going to be those who will argue and counter everything just for the sake of it.

Arguing that 2 plus 2 doesn't have to be 4, kind of thing.

Again, generally speaking (NOT you) ...sometimes its perfectly okay to be wrong... i do it all the time and it's rather liberating as it keeps me grounded.


Unless of course the Ripper deliberately disguised himself as a drunk and chose to attack his prey in front of a witness and shout out without fear of being heard by others, and effectively 'double bluff" us into thinking he wasn't the Ripper when he actually was?

That is simply not the case and the evidence indicates that BS Man's choice of behavior and actions, are not in any way related to how a serial killer would operate, especially considering ALL the Ripper's other kills were silent and secretive.
The idea that a serial killer would want to disguise his own work is again completely against all understanding we have on how serial killers work and their respective M.O's.

Wait for it...


"Yeah, but we don't know he was a serial killer!"

...

But anyway...


The Ripper took joy in 'displaying' his victims to cause torment to those who found them...unlike Stride who was hidden and carefully placed in the dark.

The murder of Stride being a victim of Bs man AND Bs Man being the Ripper, goes against all we know and all that we understand.

Of course, everyone is entitled to have their own beliefs on whether they think BS Man was also the Ripper.

I accept that there's always going to be those who try and Ice skate uphill and I take my hat off to those who go against everything just for the sake of it.

Stride may have indeed been murdered by BS Man...but if she was...then she wasn't a Ripper victim.


Wait for it...


"Yeah, but we don't know she was murdered!"


Eek!

a violent killer loses his temper?!?! god forbid!

rookie the evidence points to stride being in the company of one man, described as wearing a peaked cap, for a while. she was also known to have recently split with her main man and was dolled up for the evening. so it seems she was out looking for a new boyfriend or maybe just a good time and not actively prostituting. thats why she wasnt jumping into a secluded alley with the man, which was probably frustrating the ripper, who had spent considerable time and probably some money on her. humans, let alone serial killing ones, arent robots and have moods, tempers etc. also, the proximity in time and place of eddowes murder a little bit later jibes with the narrative of a post mortem mutilator who wasnt able to satisfy his sick fantasy with the botched first attempt. there is also no serious yellow flags with schwartz account, and the police at the time believed him.

The simplest and most logical conclusion based on the evidence is that stride was killed by bs man who was the ripper.