September 30,1888- The night of Clues?

[Wickerman]

That would be determined by how you answer the following question: was the murder of Catherine Eddowes happenstance?

or rather, was Catherine Eddowes murdered because Jack the Ripper encountered (some form of) an interruption at the IWEC?

IF yes in fact, she was THEN we cannot inflate the relevance of the Jewish aspect surrounding the ‘Catherine Eddowes murder’ because there should have been NO Duke Street, Great Synagogue, Petticoat Lane Market since neither ‘those sites’ nor ‘a Mitre Street prostitute’ originally factored into his diabolical intention for that evening. Now, there may have been a graffito but would it have even happened on Houndsditch IF Jack the Ripper had been able to fully massacre Elizabeth Stride on Berners Street as he had done with Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square?

By all stretches of the imagination, he simply knew where to find prostitutes… that being, larking about the social clubs about the hour that they let out. The first attempt didn’t work out, so he hustled down to another location where he knew he could easily find a prostitute.

seanr

I would be in the Yes group.
What I find interesting is, neither Dutfields Yard specifically, nor Berner St. in general were known for prostitution. This site must be the least likely spot for the Ripper to find a prostitute.
Which might beg the question, was Stride prostituting herself that night?
Or, if she was (given her background?), how did Jack find her there?
Then we might ask, does that mean Stride may not have been a Ripper victim after all?
Regardless of the suggested differences of the murder, we do know Stride had the same bruises on her clavicle's, that were found on Chapman.
Perhaps, the solution is, Jack didn't find her there, and she wasn't prostituting herself, but Stride arrived at that location with the Ripper.

[Tom_Wescott]

It would be hard to believe that not one of the witnesses actually saw the killer.

I'm inclined to agree. I believe that's why the killer waited for the inquests to end before killing again. He wanted to see what the police knew and what witnesses there may have been. The one exception was Nichols, where there were NO witnesses. He killed Chapman before her inquest had ended. More than a month passed after the double event before Kelly was murdered. I suspect he sailed rather close to the wind and that's why. But whether that's because of Schwartz or Lawende, we can only guess.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I would be in the Yes group.
What I find interesting is, neither Dutfields Yard specifically, nor Berner St. in general were known for prostitution. This site must be the least likely spot for the Ripper to find a prostitute.

I agree. It's an interesting choice. I feel the motivating factor for choosing to kill in St. George's and then the City was because they were outside the boundaries of where the police had flooded Whitechapel with cops. He simply went where he was safer.

Which might beg the question, was Stride prostituting herself that night?
Or, if she was (given her background?), how did Jack find her there?
Then we might ask, does that mean Stride may not have been a Ripper victim after all?
Regardless of the suggested differences of the murder, we do know Stride had the same bruises on her clavicle's, that were found on Chapman.
Perhaps, the solution is, Jack didn't find her there, and she wasn't prostituting herself, but Stride arrived at that location with the Ripper.

I think any of these are possibilities, but in the balance, it's most likely he met Stride the same way he met Chapman, Eddowes, etc., and we presume this was as a prostitute/john meeting. But in the case of McKenzie and Coles there exists the possibility of pre-arranged meetings, so my mind has become more open to that possibility than it used to be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert St Devil]

Wickerman

could this be indicative that there was a variance in how these women were prostituting themselves; to clarify by way of modern standards, the difference between a street hooker and an escort.

in our scenario, Polly Nicholas & Annie Chapman & Catherine Eddowes would be considered hookers; they were all in a desperate situation to obtain lodging by whatever means necessary & none had a shilling to her name, they would all be in a state of turning a quick back alley trick.

Elizabeth Stride would be considered an escort; she didn’t share the same dilemma as the other ladies, she had domicile (2 in fact), she had earnings & it might be considered by some that she had a rather enjoyable evening - kisses and dinner and an evening stroll and music and grapes and a flower. And, for the life of me, I just can’t shake the idea that she may have been experiencing an evening similar to that of Frances Cole and Sadler, as in they were ‘a couple about town’ pubbing and clubbing.

Whereas Polly & Annie & Catherine were looking for johns, maybe Elizabeth had a client, which obviously means she knew her company.

my question is, was September 30th a payday?

[The Rookie Detective]

Wickerman

could this be indicative that there was a variance in how these women were prostituting themselves; to clarify by way of modern standards, the difference between a street hooker and an escort.

in our scenario, Polly Nicholas & Annie Chapman & Catherine Eddowes would be considered hookers; they were all in a desperate situation to obtain lodging by whatever means necessary & none had a shilling to her name, they would all be in a state of turning a quick back alley trick.

Elizabeth Stride would be considered an escort; she didn’t share the same dilemma as the other ladies, she had domicile (2 in fact), she had earnings & it might be considered by some that she had a rather enjoyable evening - kisses and dinner and an evening stroll and music and grapes and a flower. And, for the life of me, I just can’t shake the idea that she may have been experiencing an evening similar to that of Frances Cole and Sadler, as in they were ‘a couple about town’ pubbing and clubbing.

Whereas Polly & Annie & Catherine were looking for johns, maybe Elizabeth had a client, which obviously means she knew her company.

my question is, was September 30th a payday?

Another excellent post.

When we consider Stride's lead up to her death and the last conversation she was known to have had before she left her lodgings, her choice of attire and the fact she had a place to stay and wasn't in desperate need to find money to pay for a bed, with the idea that she was seen by 2 men leaving a public house and her male companion at the time kissing her in a manner akin to a couple sharing an intimate moment; it would seem almost certain that Stride was NOT soliciting at the time she was murdered, but perhaps on a date.

Now we know that she could speak Yiddish and that she worked within the Jewish community.

She had also split from her abusive (allegedly) ex a few days earlier and had been present at an impromptu prep talk in the kitchen of her lodgings given by none other than Dr Barnardo himself.

This could perhaps indicate that Stride's life was going through a key transition.

But the question remains; IF Stride was a Ripper victim, then why did she only receive a single virtual decapitation cut and avoid being mutilated post mortem?

Well if we consider the option that the killer may not have been disturbed, then where does it leave us?

Well...

What if Stride had just begun dating the Ripper?

Not as a client, but as a potential new love interest?

And could there be a scenario whereby the Ripper didn't want to mutilate her because during the course of the evening she presented herself in a manner that suggested she was trying to get away from a life of prostitution?

Perhaps the ripper had intended to decimate her, but at the moment the urge to kill her grew too strong, he could only manage to cut her throat and then lay her down gently on her side before walking off to search for another woman he could carry out his macabre fantasies on?

Could the Ripper have changed his mind on how he dealt with Stride because her obliteration wasn't warranted, albeit her death was always assured?

[chubbs]

Another excellent post.

When we consider Stride's lead up to her death and the last conversation she was known to have had before she left her lodgings, her choice of attire and the fact she had a place to stay and wasn't in desperate need to find money to pay for a bed, with the idea that she was seen by 2 men leaving a public house and her male companion at the time kissing her in a manner akin to a couple sharing an intimate moment; it would seem almost certain that Stride was NOT soliciting at the time she was murdered, but perhaps on a date.

Now we know that she could speak Yiddish and that she worked within the Jewish community.

She had also split from her abusive (allegedly) ex a few days earlier and had been present at an impromptu prep talk in the kitchen of her lodgings given by none other than Dr Barnardo himself.

This could perhaps indicate that Stride's life was going through a key transition.

But the question remains; IF Stride was a Ripper victim, then why did she only receive a single virtual decapitation cut and avoid being mutilated post mortem?

Well if we consider the option that the killer may not have been disturbed, then where does it leave us?

Well...

What if Stride had just begun dating the Ripper?

Not as a client, but as a potential new love interest?

And could there be a scenario whereby the Ripper didn't want to mutilate her because during the course of the evening she presented herself in a manner that suggested she was trying to get away from a life of prostitution?

Perhaps the ripper had intended to decimate her, but at the moment the urge to kill her grew too strong, he could only manage to cut her throat and then lay her down gently on her side before walking off to search for another woman he could carry out his macabre fantasies on?

Could the Ripper have changed his mind on how he dealt with Stride because her obliteration wasn't warranted, albeit her death was always assured?

I really like this theory. To my mind, it carries as much weight as the 'he was disturbed by something' theory. Excellent post.

[Tani]

Another excellent post.

When we consider Stride's lead up to her death and the last conversation she was known to have had before she left her lodgings, her choice of attire and the fact she had a place to stay and wasn't in desperate need to find money to pay for a bed, with the idea that she was seen by 2 men leaving a public house and her male companion at the time kissing her in a manner akin to a couple sharing an intimate moment; it would seem almost certain that Stride was NOT soliciting at the time she was murdered, but perhaps on a date.

Now we know that she could speak Yiddish and that she worked within the Jewish community.

She had also split from her abusive (allegedly) ex a few days earlier and had been present at an impromptu prep talk in the kitchen of her lodgings given by none other than Dr Barnardo himself.

This could perhaps indicate that Stride's life was going through a key transition.

But the question remains; IF Stride was a Ripper victim, then why did she only receive a single virtual decapitation cut and avoid being mutilated post mortem?

Well if we consider the option that the killer may not have been disturbed, then where does it leave us?

Well...

What if Stride had just begun dating the Ripper?

Not as a client, but as a potential new love interest?

And could there be a scenario whereby the Ripper didn't want to mutilate her because during the course of the evening she presented herself in a manner that suggested she was trying to get away from a life of prostitution?

Perhaps the ripper had intended to decimate her, but at the moment the urge to kill her grew too strong, he could only manage to cut her throat and then lay her down gently on her side before walking off to search for another woman he could carry out his macabre fantasies on?

Could the Ripper have changed his mind on how he dealt with Stride because her obliteration wasn't warranted, albeit her death was always assured?

I think one issue with this theory is that lower-class women were known to prostitute themselves even if they had relationships. We see this very clearly with MJK and Joe; possibly with Catherine and John too. As a way of making money on the side it makes sense, especially when women had little other option if illiterate or barely literate. We know Stride was a notorious liar too (cf. Princess Alice) and may have spied opportunities regardless of her relationship status. Such relationships were also very fragile and often seemed more like tit-for-tat living arrangements (again see Catherine Eddowes and John Kelly). I think your theory may have a little merit, but would need some more evidence that is much less speculative.

[c.d.]

The problem is that even if we could somehow determine with absolute certainty that Stride was not actively soliciting that night it still tells us nothing as to what her response would have been if approached by Jack and offered money for her services.

c.d.

[Patrick Differ]

Great points here. One thing all these women had in common besides a fondness for drink, was the fact they all had at one point a stable relationship with a man. It was likely their most secure times. They also had a fatal addiction with their Street lifestyle probably best described by Eddowes reply when she was asked her name and replied, " nothing". Yet after sobering up she went right back to her addiction that included looking for her Doss money after squandering it earlier on drink.
Chapman and Eddowes and possibly Kelly were seen and heard negotiating. It would be interesting to get a better understanding of the negotiations between puncher and the unfortunate. Were there some unwritten rules for safety reasons or red flags an unfortunate would look for. I wonder if that is captured or plays here? It does not appear to be just the money..these were streetwise women who still lost their lives.

Any insights here?

[c.d.]

Hello Patrick,

Soliciting on the streets of Whitechapel was most likely dangerous even in the best of times. But as they say, if you want an omelet you have to break some eggs. These women were not in a position to be particularly choosy as to their clients. Unless someone was a regular, I would have to assume it was money up front. Common sense and streets smarts probably told them to steer clear of certain individuals. But if Jack appeared relatively normal....

c.d.

[Tani]

Great points here. One thing all these women had in common besides a fondness for drink, was the fact they all had at one point a stable relationship with a man. It was likely their most secure times. They also had a fatal addiction with their Street lifestyle probably best described by Eddowes reply when she was asked her name and replied, " nothing". Yet after sobering up she went right back to her addiction that included looking for her Doss money after squandering it earlier on drink.
Chapman and Eddowes and possibly Kelly were seen and heard negotiating. It would be interesting to get a better understanding of the negotiations between puncher and the unfortunate. Were there some unwritten rules for safety reasons or red flags an unfortunate would look for. I wonder if that is captured or plays here? It does not appear to be just the money..these were streetwise women who still lost their lives.

Any insights here?

A lot of them often relied on the men being just drunk enough to not seem as threatening or unable to gain erections, or the women would sometimes use their hands or thighs on drunk men who either didn't realise or didn't care that it wasn't happening properly. People at the time were allowed to carry weapons from knives to guns; handguns were only banned in 1997 and 'So when in 1870 a new law required a license to carry a gun outside your home, it wasn’t a violation of W and M’s agreement, because this was a law. As far as I can tell from the wording, if all you wanted to do with your gun was set it on the kitchen table and gloat over it, you could skip the license.' and, 'Before World War I [...], Britain had a quarter of a million licensed firearms and no way to count the unlicensed ones.' A quick history of Britain’s gun laws | Notes from the U.K.

The main problem for prostitutes was gangs, extortion and robbery. I'm not sure how they dealt with this other than presumably walking around in groups. One imagines many clients were already well known, but some of these prostitutes were of the lowest kind and could be bought with food, so I doubt their standards were high and some degree of violence and abuse was expected. Many of these women could hold their own somewhat well.

[C. F. Leon]

...

They also had a fatal addiction with their Street lifestyle probably best described by Eddowes reply when she was asked her name and replied, " nothing". Yet after sobering up she went right back to her addiction that included looking for her Doss money after squandering it earlier on drink.

...

Apparently the current thinking is that Eddowes, when asked her name, rather than verbally answering with "nothing", didn't reply at all. Thus "nothing" is shorthand for "she didn't say anything".

A minor quibble (or "bumble"?)

[Robert St Devil]

An interruption may not be as sexy as a romantic reservation The Rookie Detective however I’ve grown more inclined to the adage When you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras. Your account overlooks the aspect of her strangulation which was apparent by the bruising around her chest & shoulders as well as the condition of her heart (depending how you choose to interpret it). I don’t believe it was a matter of GENTLY laying her down because he had a sudden sentimental impulse. She met a violent death at the hands of a sociopath, I’m doubtful a strain of sympathy for her was running through his wicked mind. Once he had her on the ground, he removed her bonnet (much like he did with Polly Nichols) possibly because the ties were in the way, rolled her on her side, and cut her throat. He was going through his typical sequence, so more than likely his usual post-mortem signature was bound to follow - lifting her skirts, positioning her legs, rifling her pockets,…

[The Rookie Detective]

An interruption may not be as sexy as a romantic reservation The Rookie Detective however I’ve grown more inclined to the adage When you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras. Your account overlooks the aspect of her strangulation which was apparent by the bruising around her chest & shoulders as well as the condition of her heart (depending how you choose to interpret it). I don’t believe it was a matter of GENTLY laying her down because he had a sudden sentimental impulse. She met a violent death at the hands of a sociopath, I’m doubtful a strain of sympathy for her was running through his wicked mind. Once he had her on the ground, he removed her bonnet (much like he did with Polly Nichols) possibly because the ties were in the way, rolled her on her side, and cut her throat. He was going through his typical sequence, so more than likely his usual post-mortem signature was bound to follow - lifting her skirts, positioning her legs, rifling her pockets,…

An excellent point

It was commented at the time that it appeared as though Stride had been carefully laid on her side.

However, I agree with you that and the idea of the word "gently" being associated with the Ripper, does feel off-piste.

We know that based on the physical evidence that Stride received just 1 very deep cut that ran across and around her throat and went deep enough to almost decapitate her.

To have the ability to almost decapitate someone with just 1 incision, is indicative of a man who was powerful and strong and/or someone who carried a very formidable knife that was designed for purposes of butchery and dismemberment.

Strides torso and face did show signs that some degree of force had been exerted to initially pull her back violently by her neck attire and then push her down and pound the side of of her face down into the floor as the killer pinned her shoulders down by using his own body weight; possibly as he knelt on her shoulders.

There certainly isn't anything gentle about that.

He may have placed/positioned her on her side so that it appeared she had been laid down carefully, but the violent nature of her sudden demise is evident enough to conclude that Stride was dispatched very quickly and abruptly, and in a manner than perhaps indicates she was indeed a Ripper victim.

This would then support the idea that the killer was disturbed before he could inflict any post-mortem cuts on his victim, and why he subsequently went off on a mission to find another victim before the night was done.

[The Rookie Detective]

And of course the similarities continue...

Stride, Chapman and Kelly were all almost decapitated
Eddowes and Kelly had their face cut, stabbed, slashed and mutilated

It wasn't only about post mortem mutilation, it was also about the dehumanising of his victims by attacking the face, neck and head