Stride: Yes, No or God Knows?!

[The Rookie Detective]

It is also remarkable that, after the murder in Mitre Square, the killer did not go straight home- so it seems to me anyway- (see Goulston Street). The reason may have been that he was living in the Berner Street area and could not go back there, fearing the police (Stride crime scene) could stop him (possible identification/ questioning & searching by policemen). The hiding in the streets could imply that he could not go back from where he came. But why didn´t? So I think it is possible that he also killed Stride, not far from his own doorstep because something went wrong that night.

The Star, 1 October 1888:

"From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat".

Speculation of course but this could be the route the killer was taking, Berner Street- Commercial Road- Church Lane- High Street- Duke Street- Mitre Square (probably Church Lane opposite the entrance of Osborn Street), after the Stride murder. After the Eddowes murder it would have been impossible for him to take the same route so he was hiding in the area north of the High Street (Goulston Street, Wentworth Street, Old Montague Street etc.) before he could take a deep breath.

Apropos "sources":

The Star, 2 October 1888:

"In the matter of the Hungarian who said he saw a struggle between a man and a woman in the passage where the Stride body was afterwards found, the Leman-street police have reason to doubt the truth of the story. They arrested one man on the description thus obtained, and a second on that furnished from another source, but they are not likely to act further on the same information without additional facts. "

I think it is possible that "one man on the description thus obtained" was "Pipeman" & that the "reason to doubt the truth of the story" based on Pipeman´s statement that he thought Schwartz had been the attacker (see post 20). "And a second on that furnished from another source" was a man who was seen by another witness (Brown/ Marshall) near the Berner Street- crime scene.

One of the very best posts I've read in a long time.

Great stuff indeed!

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

As regards Stride I think she may or may not have been a victim of Jack the Ripper.

I'm of two minds on the subject of Stride. Either she was or wasn't. I have no dog in the fight, and if proof came to light for either side, I'll be fine with it.

Personally, I think it's likely that she was, and the Ripper was simply interrupted at his work. Or not. Either way, I'd hate to have to live off the difference!

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

Error

Your poll raises an interesting conundrum. I would say that these same points you mention can be equally applied to Martha Tabram, a woman whom I feel is an early Ripper victim. Her occupation, age, body position, victimology, both method of approach and attack, along with the fact that she was found at the end of the Bank Holiday, lead me to believe that Martha should be included with the C5.

[Duran duren]

Your poll raises an interesting conundrum. I would say that these same points you mention can be equally applied to Martha Tabram, a woman whom I feel is an early Ripper victim. Her occupation, age, body position, victimology, both method of approach and attack, along with the fact that she was found at the end of the Bank Holiday, lead me to believe that Martha should be included with the C5.

Agreed indeed...

[caz]

I think that could be an argument against. The fact that he found a favourable victim under favourable circumstances relatively soon after the Stride murder decreases the likelihood that it was the same perpetrator, imho.

Not sure I follow your logic, Sam.

Eddowes was in the right place to be found when the ripper happened along, and she did prove to be a 'favourable victim' for him under 'favourable circumstances', or he would not have killed her and we would almost certainly never have known her name. That was all down to Eddowes, and she'd have been where she was, regardless of where the ripper had been earlier and how he had occupied his time.

We also have at least three documented double events from recent years to show a favourable victim in each case being found under favourable circumstances, within a short time of the same man being forced by unfavourable circumstances to abandon his first victim prematurely.

And don't forget, the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard - hoaxer or not - guessed this was a 'thing' before the history of serial murder finally caught up to prove it.

Guess which way I voted!

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I made a rough prediction that around 70% would vote that Stride was a JtR victim but it’s at 60.6% so far. Only 18.2% favour that she wasn’t a victim (I’m in that category but I’m certainly not convinced that I’m right)

[caz]

Only 18.2% favour that she wasn’t a victim (I’m in that category but I’m certainly not convinced that I’m right)

Well Herlock, Stride was most definitely 'a victim'. The question is how she came to be one.

I know, I know. But it always gets to me when I see that phrase: 'she wasn't a victim', without the ripper qualifier.

I seem to recall she was even once referred to as 'Lucky Liz' because she wasn't ripped after death from you know what to breakfast time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well Herlock, Stride was most definitely 'a victim'. The question is how she came to be one.

I know, I know. But it always gets to me when I see that phrase: 'she wasn't a victim', without the ripper qualifier.

I seem to recall she was even once referred to as 'Lucky Liz' because she wasn't ripped after death from you know what to breakfast time.

Love,

Caz
X

Couldn’t agree more Caz. I should have spotted that and thanks for pointing it out.