Suspect Witnesses?

[caz]

Agreed Darryl.

Except that we can't eliminate the possibility that he might simply have been willing to risk it or just didn't didn't give a damn. He wanted Stride dead for whatever reason.

Look at the recent jewel heist at the Louvre. Who in their right mind would have attempted that? Some people have major league cojones.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

I would go for the 'major league cojones' argument, if this is the same man who had the major league cojones to do what was done to Eddowes a little later, before swanning off with half her apron and disappearing into the night.

I'm always surprised at some of the efforts made to finger some unknown male with a sharp knife and an unknown reason for slicing Stride's throat with it, when we already had one right under our noses in Mitre Square, not far enough distance from Berner Street to cause us any difficulty whatsoever in making a likely link between two cases of a very rare crime: the violent murder of a helpless, penniless woman outdoors on her own.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Rookie Detective]

It's also important to note that Stride herself was no push over.

Any idea that she was a woman who was weak and unable to defend herself, is perhaps misguided.

As a woman who likely had to deal with men who were often aggressive, dominating, and violent, she would have had to have built up a level of guile and resilience to be able to deal with such behaviour, and survive.

That in itself is perhaps a tantalising clue as to the Ripper's identity...
The last person who she would have expected to suddenly cut her throat.

I believe she suffered from Cadaveric Spasm at the precise moment her brain realised her throat was cut and she was about to die. The combination of shock and fear then caused her hand muscles to spasm and lock into place, and inadvertently secure the Cachous that she had in her hand at the moment the killer chose to strike.

Cachous were marketed primarily toward women, who sought to freshen their breath after smoking.
This would have no doubt extended to a woman who went on a date.

When we combine what she was wearing, the sighting of her and a male companion in Settles St circa 11pm, and her holding Cachous (that were almost certainly HERS) all help to support the idea that she was in the company of her killer for a period of time up to her death; ergo, not soliciting.
Prostitution was her means of an income, and not a reflection of who she was as a person. In other words, just because she was a prostitute, doesn't mean she was soliciting 24/7 365 days a year.

Her killer likely came across as endearing, charming and attentive to her needs as a woman.
If he didn't, then it would have made her suspicious.

At the time, women who were soliciting to earn money, were fully aware of the fact there was a butchering killer out there on the streets.
On that basis, the killer would have adapted accordingly.

The idea that a drunken man who threw her to the ground would then be brassen enough to cut her throat, just doesn't fit with the way the killer operated. He wasn't some openly maniacal lunatic, or some random drunk.

Stride was tough enough to have dealt with drunks.

But she wouldn't have expected that soft speaking man with a friendly countenance and dreamy eyes whispering words of affection into her ear, to suddenly restrict her throat and then violently attempt to sever her head in just one deep cut.

Stride never saw him coming.

And for that reason, Bs man wasn't her killer.

And he certainly wasn't the Ripper.

I don't believe the Ripper necessarily chose his victims because they were weak, I think he chose them because they didn't suspect him until it was too late.

That was part of his sick game

Look at the case of Emily Smith who was attacked by the railway arch near Shadwell Station on 5th November 1892.
For me, it was the Ripper and he simply botched it up when Emily fought back and managed to avoid his knife attack.

All the signs of a Ripper attack.

[caz]

Hi Rookie,

Nice post. I do however think it's possible that the ripper was volatile enough to be charming all the while the woman he was with appeared to be charming in return - Eddowes to take the obvious example - but capable of losing his temper very quickly and very violently if things didn't go to plan and a woman started playing up.

I agree that Stride was completely taken by surprise, but whether that was because her killer was someone other than BS man, who acted kindly towards her, or just BS man going through a sudden, unexpected and fatal mood swing, I'm not sure we could ever know.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sunny Delight]

The Ripper attacks Stride as witnessed by Schwartz. However he does not immediately kill her. Fearful of Schwartz returning with a Policeman he attempts to placate Stride. When he is satisfied enough time has passed and no Policeman would be returning he attacks again and cuts Stride's throat.

Hi Sunny,

While that scenario might eliminate the chances of the B.S. man (be he the Ripper or not) having Schwartz return with a PC, it doesn't eliminate the fact that Schwartz and Pipeman could describe him to the police.

c.d.

Well he knows he has been seen no matter what. Why would he rush off because a couple of people could describe what he looked like to a PC?

I think it is almost impossible to figure out the exact timeline of events now. Even in 1888 the Police couldn't nail it down. Almost every conceivable scenario has drawbacks or variables that come into play. But then real life decisions made on the spur of the moment can be very difficult to understand. But to my mind these two scenarios I have suggested are fairly sensible with the info we have.

[c.d.]

Well he knows he has been seen no matter what. Why would he rush off because a couple of people could describe what he looked like to a PC?

If he rushes off after simply throwing Stride to the ground and is caught he would probably get a small fine and/or a lecture don't do it again.

If he stays and kills Stride after being seen by Schwartz and Pipeman and they describe him and what they saw took place to a PC he is now a prime suspect in a murder investigation for which he could be hanged and the police would be out in force looking for him.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Excellent post Jon.

At one stage my wife and I owned and ran a retail outlet. There is nothing suspicious about a customer buying something from the outlet. It is not in anyway even notable.....it's at best..boring. It would have been when grapes entered the considerations that Packer's memory would have been jogged. Given his age, which would have been considered old at that time, some inconsistencies could be expected. However, I seem to recall one of your posts where you established that most of Packer's inconsistencies were actually attributable to inconsistent press reports? Or am I having a "Packer" moment?

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Thankyou, yes there are inconsistencies across the reports and police memo's.

We are mostly hindered by not having a direct witness statement from Packer himself. We are relying on what other people decided to write, mostly in paraphrase.

When we gather the sources we find the first mention of Packer's story is found in the Evening News of 4th Oct., yet the article begins by referring to "this morning", which may suggest the article was written on the morning of the 4th, but only published in the evening.

Insp. Moore of the police then reacted by sending Sgt. White to find Packer and take him to the mortuary to identify the victim. There are no details of the crime or the suspect in this memo.

Following this is a memo by Sgt. White describing how he became involved, and the result of his meeting with Packer.
This is where we read Packer said the victim came with a man and bought grapes about 12:00am, and him shutting up his shop about 12:30 am.

The report by Sgt. White is consistent with Packer's story in the Evening News, where Packer says the couple bought some grapes about 11:45 pm. and he prepared to close up his shop after 12:15 am.

The main inconsistency is the summary by A.C.B., this is where we find changes, here it is written that the couple came to buy grapes at 11:00 pm, instead of 11:45 pm.
We also read Packer closed his shop at 11:30 pm, instead of 12:30 am., or at least after 12:15 am.

The description of the suspect has also been changed from (in Evening News):
The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years; about five feet seven inches in height; was stout, square built; wore a wideawake hat and dark clothes; had the appearance of a clerk;

To (in A.C.B.):
25-30 about 5.7. with long black coat buttoned up – soft felt hat, kind of Yankee hat rather broad shoulders . . . I put the man down as a young clerk. He had a frock coat on – no gloves.

These changes have been credited to Packer, but the truth is we do not know who changed the details.
When Swanson included Packer in his 19th October report, he was quoting from the summary by A.C.B. almost verbatim, instead of from an original witness statement, which is strange.