A closer look at Leon Goldstein

[Michael W Richards]

Okay, Michael, I doubt we will ever agree on certain aspects, and I truly don't understand your comments about leaving Stride 'in peace', as if forgetting her and her murder, while concentrating more on the other victims, and analysing their murders, is the better way to go. Is this about one unidentified killer for you, and not about each and every Whitechapel victim on the file?

Back to Goldstein? Or should he now be left in peace?

By the way, it's so much easier to discuss things with posters who make better use of the quote function. When you quote someone's post and then put your replies within the quote, it requires a more time-consuming copy and paste exercise for anyone wanting to respond to one or more of your points.

So I think I'll leave it there.

Love,

Caz
X

I though Id sent a positive message, but by the general tone above, not received as such or as inconsequential I gather. As for Stride, the point isnt as obscure as your making it....Stride was almost certainly not killed by a serial mutilator so she deserves to be left in peace. Some Canonicals were killed by this legendary killer, and that link makes scrutinizing the womens histories, habits, social lives, more acceptable. When people study the Ripper, they are introduced to a group of Five women out of 13 in the Unsolved Murders file that most believe were killed by Jack. Well, on the surface it appears Liz wasnt Ripped...so technically we have no business digging into her life like squirrels trying to find nuts.

I just think that if my relative was Liz Stride I would be unhappy about people looking into her life and making judgements about her. She wasnt ripped....clearly....so it would be nice to leave her out of the merry go-round that is Ripperology.

Goldstein is interesting because he walked past the gates at a time when Liz and probably her killer were just inside. Its at a time when at least 3 witnesses, corroborated by the times given by Lamb, Johnson and Blackwell, say they were around the body with Louis. So its interesting given that dynamic that he says he saw nothing. Like Eagle. And Lave. Seems like a mini pandemic of temporary blindness.

[Michael W Richards]

This is exactly my problem with the idea that the Mitre Square killer could have known about the Berner Street murder by the time he reached Goulston Street with the bloody apron piece - if he wasn't responsible for both.

How fast could the news have realistically travelled, in any direction, from those who were there at the earlier crime scene? And why would these witnesses - predominantly Jewish - have spread the word to the surrounding streets by stopping everyone they saw to say: "there's another one down, and for my money, the Jews did it"? The Mitre Square killer was coming from the City, so what were the chances of his path crossing with anyone who had come from Berner Street with that message on their lips? The one person with a reason for keeping his head down and not engaging with anyone before reaching the safety of home and staying there until daylight, was a man leaving his own crime scene with the evidence still on him. In fact, he was arguably among the least likely to have heard the news on the streets when the markets burst into life on the Sunday morning.

Love,

Caz
X

The Mitre Square event was concluded by 1:45am, the apron section and writing were first discovered according to PC Long at around 2:55am. The killer may well have dropped things off in a bolt hole near Berner for all we know. And people would be coming and going from the scene, talking about it as they went their merry way. And how would you know if he was "keeping his head down" after Mitre Square. He might have been wearing a slaughtermans bloody apron himself for all we know, although we do know men around that neighbourhood at night often would look like that.

The point here is that there is plenty of time for the Mitre Square killer to have learned about goings on in Berner St from street traffic moving about. And again, for all we know he could have been someone just outside the gates trying to get a peek in.

There is ample time there. And when you consider how I positioned an interpretation of the GSG, it could well be he was suggesting that blame should be given to Jews. When you also consider that when the men went for help they were yelling "another murder" has been committed..the inference is clearly that they initially sought to blame the unknown killer at large. So, at that point in time...it could be construed that the Jews were seeking to blame others, when the evidence is fairly clear that ONLY the club attendees were in that immediate area at that time.

I believe its probable that the killer in Mitre Square wrote that message...the apron section verifies he was the killer of Kate. There is nothing that indicates he revealed in some way that he also killed Liz, but he does suggest in his message that Jews either should be blamed or wont be blamed without cause.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Im glad weve found ways to discuss broader things without over trivializing this study.

Okay, Michael, I doubt we will ever agree on certain aspects, and I truly don't understand your comments about leaving Stride 'in peace', as if forgetting her and her murder, while concentrating more on the other victims, and analysing their murders, is the better way to go. Is this about one unidentified killer for you, and not about each and every Whitechapel victim on the file?

Back to Goldstein? Or should he now be left in peace?

By the way, it's so much easier to discuss things with posters who make better use of the quote function. When you quote someone's post and then put your replies within the quote, it requires a more time-consuming copy and paste exercise for anyone wanting to respond to one or more of your points.

So I think I'll leave it there.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don't think that the C5 were all ripper victims. I think that there was a lot of murder going on, that we don't stop and think of, we work on this like these were the only murders of the time. IMHO

Hi mikey,

Unsolved murder by knife, of penniless women on the streets of East London - or anywhere else in England for that matter - was very rare indeed. We know this from the murder statistics of the time.

From memory there were something like eleven cases in the whole of England in 1887 and eleven cases in 1889, but seventeen in 1888 - six of those being Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly.

It's one of the reasons that some have suggested a copy cat killer for the murders they don't accept as part of a series. It is seen as a way to get away with a domestic murder by having it linked with the others. Without an active serial killer in the vicinity, few could hope to commit murder for personal reasons and avoid being identified and hanged for it.

I don't buy that argument because copy cats are even rarer!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why would the Ripper have the apron section if the GSG was not premeditated? Did the Ripper hear about the first murder and think, "Hey, I could link myself to this other murder I've just heard about by writing something implicating the Jews on Berner St and leaving this big piece of bloodied apron I just happened to have taken away from my murder, underneath it. Just for jolly!"

It's easy to say that the word of the first murder was on the street, but how in practice does he hear of it? Does he walk around town after killing Eddowes, and get into conversations with random strangers?

This is exactly my problem with the idea that the Mitre Square killer could have known about the Berner Street murder by the time he reached Goulston Street with the bloody apron piece - if he wasn't responsible for both.

How fast could the news have realistically travelled, in any direction, from those who were there at the earlier crime scene? And why would these witnesses - predominantly Jewish - have spread the word to the surrounding streets by stopping everyone they saw to say: "there's another one down, and for my money, the Jews did it"? The Mitre Square killer was coming from the City, so what were the chances of his path crossing with anyone who had come from Berner Street with that message on their lips? The one person with a reason for keeping his head down and not engaging with anyone before reaching the safety of home and staying there until daylight, was a man leaving his own crime scene with the evidence still on him. In fact, he was arguably among the least likely to have heard the news on the streets when the markets burst into life on the Sunday morning.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

As per my usual methodology, in response ....

I absolutely agree, Michael. But who said the ripper - if he killed Stride - did seek less privacy on that occasion? What would that even look like? If he was itching to use his knife again and encountered Stride out alone on the street, how could he have got the privacy he sought if - unlike Nichols and Chapman - this woman unexpectedly dug her heels in by the club and refused to go anywhere more private, arguably because women like her had been picked off by a predator over recent weeks for offering him that very privacy? Yes, he could have given up on this woman entirely and sought another victim if he was feeling charitable, but how long would it have taken him to teach her a swift lesson if he didn't take kindly to being thwarted by a woman? Certainly no longer than it would have taken any other violent criminal armed with a knife.

I ....sense, I guess...maybe based on his semi clinical and methodical approach with Annie...that he isnt a rage killer. Or that he is even an angry man. I think he was a tortured man for sure... with sick compulsions. But I believe the only time he shows real spontaneity is how he adapts to his present environment. When to quickly subdue...which women might offer him the best options in that risk/reward category, it seems to me thats how Polly and Annie were selected for a commitment by him. But he has no commitment in Berner Street until he uses his knife. He could just tip his brim and walk on past. Like Goldstein. There was no need for him to risk it all to only have a simple kill to satisfy him. I hear the comeback....Thats why he kills again, thwarted and not sated. Cant say that doesnt make sense as a theory, but Im not sure all theory is valid when closely examined. I think the man I refer to as Jack the Ripper was innocuous on the outside and a furnace on the inside. Harmless looking. I believe its that attribute that allows him to get with even more women alone during that fall.

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make between Stride and any of the other Whitechapel murder victims, Michael. The bad timing was common to them all and equally catastrophic, regardless of whether there was one killer or several. Why is it somehow better for Stride if she is not linked to a common killer, who didn't know his victims personally and saw them as fair game, not for who they were but where they were? How would she be left in peace if we all fell in line and treated her murder as 'different'? What about the other poor souls? They all died violently by an unknown hand after all.


Liz Strides life is intertwined with infamy due to her being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person. I do believe that there was A ripper that Fall, and for me, that he likely kills 2 or 3...maybe 4, women in that Unsolved murders file. As a result I think they belong with this story. Sadly to say, but there are a few women who will be researched and analyzed forever due to their link to Jack. No peace. But Liz Stride doesnt belong to this story in my opinion. She was tragically engulfed in it and her life will be scrutinized with the others forever. Maybe I can influence thinking a little even with a few people that its time we respectfully move on from Liz Strides life and reconfigure our story based on that new Canonical shape.

X

Im glad weve found ways to discuss broader things without over trivializing this study.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

That isnt a huge stretch Caz, that he might have heard about the Berner Murder on the way home from Mitre Square. He left the square just before 1:44-45 in all probability, and the apron section isnt found by the constable until he is on his second round trip. Thats a fair amount of time to drop off anything cumbersome and hear people on the streets speaking of "another" murder. We have no idea where he first went after leaving the club, hell, for all we know hes the Batty Street Lodger and would have been in the immediate area. So...your next question would be...why then go to Goulston, why not somewhere closer? I would imagine he was making some kind of statement against the Jews and in the Model Homes tenants are the targeted audience.

Why would the Ripper have the apron section if the GSG was not premeditated? Did the Ripper hear about the first murder and think, "Hey, I could link myself to this other murder I've just heard about by writing something implicating the Jews on Berner St and leaving this big piece of bloodied apron I just happened to have taken away from my murder, underneath it. Just for jolly!"

It's easy to say that the word of the first murder was on the street, but how in practice does he hear of it? Does he walk around town after killing Eddowes, and get into conversations with random strangers?

[mikey559]

I don't think that the C5 were all ripper victims. I think that there was a lot of murder going on, that we don't stop and think of, we work on this like these were the only murders of the time. IMHO

[caz]

Hi Caz,

In response.....

The risk/reward proposition is not in his favour at that specific location, too many variables and knowledge that people were inside and awake, singing,..the door ajar to the kitchen. Not as secure as Hanbury...which begs the question, why would he seek less privacy after Annie?

I absolutely agree, Michael. But who said the ripper - if he killed Stride - did seek less privacy on that occasion? What would that even look like? If he was itching to use his knife again and encountered Stride out alone on the street, how could he have got the privacy he sought if - unlike Nichols and Chapman - this woman unexpectedly dug her heels in by the club and refused to go anywhere more private, arguably because women like her had been picked off by a predator over recent weeks for offering him that very privacy? Yes, he could have given up on this woman entirely and sought another victim if he was feeling charitable, but how long would it have taken him to teach her a swift lesson if he didn't take kindly to being thwarted by a woman? Certainly no longer than it would have taken any other violent criminal armed with a knife.

I feel nothing but compassion for Liz, I believe she is the least likely of all Five to have been killed by Jack but due to catastrophically bad timing is now forever analyzed as one of the C5. The other women may or may not have been Jacks victims IMHO, at least 2 or 3 probably were,...but as such their unfortunate fate is sadly forever linked with these....they just happened to die at the hands of a legendary killer. But I dont believe Liz did, and therefore I would love to see her left in peace at some point.

Cheers Caz.

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make between Stride and any of the other Whitechapel murder victims, Michael. The bad timing was common to them all and equally catastrophic, regardless of whether there was one killer or several. Why is it somehow better for Stride if she is not linked to a common killer, who didn't know his victims personally and saw them as fair game, not for who they were but where they were? How would she be left in peace if we all fell in line and treated her murder as 'different'? What about the other poor souls? They all died violently by an unknown hand after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

I think your argument pivots on whether he would even initiate an attack if it was unclear whether he would have enough time to do the mutilations, and for me, the murders were not the end game.

Some women may have been targeted others may have not. I don't think it has to be all or nothing in that regard.

As for the initiation of the attack, people (not just criminals) make errors in judgment all the time.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

The risk/reward proposition is not in his favour at that specific location, too many variables and knowledge that people were inside and awake, singing,..the door ajar to the kitchen. Not as secure as Hanbury...which begs the question, why would he seek less privacy after Annie?

If he specifically wanted to kill Stride and not just any woman then he would have to accept the situation as it was.

c.d.

Hi cd,

Well... that scenario would be something new as well, wouldnt it? Targeting someone specific? There is nothing within the evidence into Pollys and Annies death that indicate they were specifically sought out. It does appear, at least to me, that when he selected those 2 women they were actively soliciting and both women were physically compromised that the time....one drunk, one sick. I think that last part was part of his selection process, I dont see this guy as someone seeking any challenges from his victims. And in this case, Liz was sober and presentable.

I think your argument pivots on whether he would even initiate an attack if it was unclear whether he would have enough time to do the mutilations, and for me, the murders were not the end game. So I doubt he would risk capture for a simple 1 cut murder.

[c.d.]

The risk/reward proposition is not in his favour at that specific location, too many variables and knowledge that people were inside and awake, singing,..the door ajar to the kitchen. Not as secure as Hanbury...which begs the question, why would he seek less privacy after Annie?

If he specifically wanted to kill Stride and not just any woman then he would have to accept the situation as it was.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Caz,

In response.....

But how would the author of the GSG have known anything about this earlier murder, let alone have been in a position to speculate that 'the Jews' were responsible, if he had come from killing Eddowes and had been nowhere near the Berner Street crime scene?

That isnt a huge stretch Caz, that he might have heard about the Berner Murder on the way home from Mitre Square. He left the square just before 1:44-45 in all probability, and the apron section isnt found by the constable until he is on his second round trip. Thats a fair amount of time to drop off anything cumbersome and hear people on the streets speaking of "another" murder. We have no idea where he first went after leaving the club, hell, for all we know hes the Batty Street Lodger and would have been in the immediate area. So...your next question would be...why then go to Goulston, why not somewhere closer? I would imagine he was making some kind of statement against the Jews and in the Model Homes tenants are the targeted audience.

I agree that anything the ripper was planning would have depended on the right circumstances coming together, in terms of victim choice, time and place. If one or more factors were not in his favour he was not compelled to go ahead with any ripping, but that wouldn't have stopped him killing out of anger or revenge, or just because he could, and what was another woman with her throat cut to this man? Knife practice - that's what. I find it strange that any other violent man with a knife could have killed Stride for no specific reason, but the ripper - who was yet to be known by that trade name - gets a free pass, uniquely, on the grounds that he would have spared the life of any woman if he was deprived - even by the woman herself - of the chance to rip her up afterwards without being interrupted.

It may just be a matter of his assessing risk/reward values so the he doesnt almost get caught like in Bucks Row. And he left with unfinished business. I think its fair to suggest that no matter what his illness is specifically, he demonstrates some high functioning. He gets in and out cleanly. As far as we can tell its possible no-one ever saw him with any alleged victim. No genius, but capable of planning or reacting efficiently. Its one reason I like Isenschmidt for Annies killer...and very likely Pollys. He was an organized butcher...could produce large quantities of butchered product easily. But that would mean that Jack is already off the streets before any more Ripper murders happen....and thats not a easily tenable position.

But this takes no account of what Stride was doing in the moments before she was murdered, either to facilitate her killer's access to her body or to try and prevent it.

She was being choked at the time, I think that Blitzkreig move grabbing her scarf, likely while she was facing away...probably headed back out to the street for "safety", or at least visibility, caught her off guard. Blackwell suggests she was likely pulled "off balance". In some ways I see that aspect being closer to what I would expect from Jack, all nice and safe until...he very suddenly wasnt.

He can only do what the circumstances - and his victim - allow. If he encounters Stride, and things do not go entirely his way after that, he can either move on immediately or take the split second needed to take his knife to her throat.

The risk/reward proposition is not in his favour at that specific location, too many variables and knowledge that people were inside and awake, singing,..the door ajar to the kitchen. Not as secure as Hanbury...which begs the question, why would he seek less privacy after Annie?

Would you not agree that the man who worked on Chapman 'so well' arguably found what he wanted in Eddowes?

I would agree that what the killer intended to do in Mitre Square was probably satisfactory, Im not sure that the motive was organ theft, and Im not sure Jack killed her. There is some symbology there that may offer a clue....the markings made on her face and nose are consistent with street violence inflicted on someone who was thought to be a snitch, or a "Nose".

Do you not give Stride the least credit for putting a temporary spanner in the works and paying for it with her life?

I feel nothing but compassion for Liz, I believe she is the least likely of all Five to have been killed by Jack but due to catastrophically bad timing is now forever analyzed as one of the C5. The other women may or may not have been Jacks victims IMHO, at least 2 or 3 probably were,...but as such their unfortunate fate is sadly forever linked with these....they just happened to die at the hands of a legendary killer. But I dont believe Liz did, and therefore I would love to see her left in peace at some point.

Love,

Caz
X

Cheers Caz.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Was it Leon Goldstein who was alleged to have walked with a limp or gait?

Or was that Schwartz?


RD

Long Liz

Dr Phillips: There is a deformity in the lower fifth of the bones of the right leg, which are not straight, but bow forward; there is a thickening above the left ankle. The bones are here straighter.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes there are many variables and unknowns regarding location, state of mind, perceived risk but there are also many 'knowns' yes Hanbury Street was occupied and any occupant could disrupt/trap JTR at any time. but surely that risk is significantly less than attacking somebody in the yard of what in modern terms is a late night music venue, serving alcohol with people coming in and out at unpredictable times. Also this is the place where the week before there had almost been a riot and neighbours had complained about noise and the general behaviour of some of the people who used the club. Any person including the killer would be aware of this. It was well covered in the press.

I suppose the answer to this is look at the evidence regarding what activity takes place at the club on a Saturday night and then carry out our own 'Risk Assessment' I am sure there are users of the site that carry out risk assessment as part of there employ and there must be ways of doing this scientifically ( I wouldn't have a clue!) If the unbiased outcome remains the same, that the yard was quiet enough, dark enough etc then nothing much has changed but if the risk is very high this may indicate the type of person who would be prepared to take it. (drunk person, mad person, person trying to discredit Jews that sort of thing)

Just suggesting we use the established facts/evidence we have. I am not saying whether Stride was a victim of JTR, BSM or whoever but we only have what we have to go on.

The perceived risk must depend on the perceived intent of the killer. Had this been a Ripper murder, we are not obliged to suppose that he was interrupted in his work. He may, for example, have wanted to create trouble for the club, perhaps owing to a perverse sense of humour. I think Stride probably was a Ripper victim, but I see no evidence for interruption.