Elizabeth's murder and the double event

[Michael W Richards]

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .
They would have been shouting her to wake up in the morning ...
She wasn't drunk
Another point missed by many is that John Kelly told Wilkinson an hour before she was arrested that she already had been ! Clairvoyant ?

First.....the condition she was in caused her to be arrested. The arresting officer and the one that booked her confirmed her condition.
Second....Wilkinson said " half past 7 OR 8, if it was 8:30, she had been under arrest for a half hour. This does not mean that Kelly didn't lie about what he knew when....its clear he did lie.

[packers stem]

I think if I recall correctly Sam that the City was using a Policy that dictated release of the Drunk and Disorderly as soon as they sobered up, rather than using the Met policy of holding them all night automatically.

You're both assuming she was drunk .
Ever been so drunk you need picking up off the floor and help to walk ?
If so you'll also know that once your head goes down you don't wake up four hours later singing and asking to be free from the dry bed you've found by chance .
They would have been shouting her to wake up in the morning ...
She wasn't drunk
Another point missed by many is that John Kelly told Wilkinson an hour before she was arrested that she already had been ! Clairvoyant ?

[MrBarnett]

I'm wondering if it's ever occurred to anyone that Elizabeth Stride's murder may have been a distraction in order to cover for the killing of Catherine Eddowes. If the Ripper was working with one or two accomplices, which can't be ruled out just because the police weren't pursuing that line at the time of the double event, perhaps the plan was to have one of the accomplices commit a murder in one part of Whitechapel, while the Ripper got on with his more 'signature style' killing somewhere else. This would make sense for a number of reasons;
- everyone was now on high alert and looking for a lone killer, thereby making it more difficult to kill. A new strategy had to be invented to keep the police running in rings. (We see him change strategy again with MJK).
- the more I look at the killings, the more I see this as bearing the hallmarks of more than one person. First of all, there seems to be two different skill sets at work; someone who understood anatomy and/or butchery who would have been trained to a high level and therefore quite probably employed or of the middle class, and someone else who knew the back streets and haunts of the poor and homeless like the back of their hand. I don't think these two things are necessarily compatible in the late Victorian era. Basically, this seems like the job of one mastermind and a 'fixer' who set things up for him, who found the women.
-a two or even three handed operation would have meant it was easier to hide evidence, work quickly and get away. This may have been more difficult with one person rather than a team working in tandem.
-Elizabeth Stride's murder seems to bear the hallmarks of someone who had learned the basics of how the Ripper killed, but the act was performed sloppily (like an accomplice). The 'accomplice' may have been the man Schwartz saw.
-Elizabeth Stride's murder just doesn't feel as if it fits - it was done too carelessly and too much in the open. But Catherine Eddowes' death seems more like his work. Perhaps the accomplice had slightly botched the first 'distraction' murder?

Of course, there's one small (actually huge) problem with this idea. Liz was killed in the Met H division and Kate was killed in the City. Two distinct police forces were involved.

[Madam Detective]

Thanks so much! I'll have a look for it.

[DJA]

Madam Detective,pretty sure it was a letter to The Times signed WEG.
Cannot find a copy,however many here will have it.
Gladstone and Gull were both Fellows of the Royal Society,which may explain the source.
Neither were Jack the Ripper though.

[Madam Detective]

Dave, I'd like to read that - but I've checked the Times archive and it doesn't seem to have been printed in the Times. Do you know where that appeared? And you're not seriously suggesting that Gladstone, who was nearly 80 in 1888 was the Ripper?

[DJA]

When WE Gladstone writes to The Times to assure readers that Jack the Ripper is actually conducting research that will benefit them,one does get suspicious.

[Madam Detective]

Here's another thought - what if no one was hiding anything from anyone because there was no conspiracy?

[Madam Detective]

Also, the people who you say 'were lying or very inaccurate', may not have actually even seen Elizabeth, but someone they believed to be her. All of this occurred in the midst of complete public hysteria. Today, following a crime the police regularly get many 'tip offs' and sightings of victims or suspects which are incorrect. People are often absolutely certain they've seen or heard something which they didn't actually see or hear. It's all fraught with problems. And because the police in 1888 probably didn't investigate any of these sightings, or we don't know the degree to which they did or didn't question these witnesses, we're not in a position to draw any hard conclusions about who had a vested interest in something and who didn't, or what was a real sighting and what wasn't.

[Madam Detective]

Yes, but the point is that we still can't prove it was Elizabeth they saw. In modern trials, site visits are required to check light levels, distance and visibility, sound, etc to see if it's even probable they could accurately identify the person. That's impossible in this case. In a modern court all such evidence would be discounted and we must apply the same rules today when evaluating this so-called testimony. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny, therefore we can make absolutely no firm assertions about anything. Even if there was a suspect, a jury (today) would not be able to convict if following standard criteria. And also, we simply don't know who had a horse in this race and who didn't because the credibility and backgrounds of the witnesses were never checked or questioned. All the evidence is tainted from start to finish.

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry, but there are problems with all of those 'sightings' - inconsistencies that would have them dismissed in a moment were they actually presented as evidence in a court of law today. Even the police had their doubts. We don't even have the original coroner's inquest documents, just newspaper reports, and if you read all of them, they are riddled with journalistic inconsistencies too - in many cases they actively contradict each other. There is no way of knowing what really happened, which is why it is literally impossible to solve these murders - however, it is a fascinating subject.

Inconsistency is accurate, if you create a timeeline and place all the witnesses sightings and stories in chronological order, you can clearly see some people were either lying or very inaccurate. If you sort out who had a stake in a perception of guilt scenario, and set aside their stories, its gets a bit easier. Fanny, Brown, PC Smith and Spooner had no horse in this race. And 2 witness accounts from inside the club, plus Spooner, directly contradict Louis's story. No-one corroborates Lave, Eagle or Louis, ...or Israel...a friend of Wolff Wess.

[Madam Detective]

Sorry, but there are problems with all of those 'sightings' - inconsistencies that would have them dismissed in a moment were they actually presented as evidence in a court of law today. Even the police had their doubts. We don't even have the original coroner's inquest documents, just newspaper reports, and if you read all of them, they are riddled with journalistic inconsistencies too - in many cases they actively contradict each other. There is no way of knowing what really happened, which is why it is literally impossible to solve these murders - however, it is a fascinating subject.

[Sam Flynn]

I think if I recall correctly Sam that the City was using a Policy that dictated release of the Drunk and Disorderly as soon as they sobered up, rather than using the Met policy of holding them all night automatically.

Indeed so, Michael. However, Eddowes had to wake up and demand to be let out. Had she not done so - even, perhaps, if she'd dozed on for just another half hour or so - she might never have crossed paths with the Ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

I fear this is a case of pot calling the kettle black. We know nothing about what Liz was really doing - every sighting of her that night is unconfirmed. There is no absolute way to know if she 'spent hours with the same man wandering about'. There is also no absolute way of knowing if she was soliciting, or who she was meeting. Not a single shred of anything said by the so-called witnesses is verifiable. We don't even have the transcripts of the actual coroner's inquest, only newspaper reports which have been edited and reprinted. There is a vital difference between newspapers and the actual documents when it comes to reliability of source material. That's why we're never going to solve these murders. Period.

Sorry, but she was seen in the company of several people, if you count Israels BSM...which I don't by the way.

You are on the money when you say they will never be solved to the satisfaction of all....but I believe there are murders we can remove from the assumed list.

[Michael W Richards]

I think it's very material, as there was no guarantee she'd be let out of the cells. If she hadn't woken up from her drunken slumbers, she'd probably have lived to a ripe old age.

I think if I recall correctly Sam that the City was using a Policy that dictated release of the Drunk and Disorderly as soon as they sobered up, rather than using the Met policy of holding them all night automatically.