What makes her such a likely candidate?

[emlodik]

Hi! I was just wondering if someone could clear something up for a newbie like me. What clue and/or method of deduction makes Liz Stride such a likely candidate of being a Ripper victim that wasn't mutilated because the killer was sacred off? Because so far, aside from the brutal murder of Catherine Eddows an hour later, she looks to me about as likely (or unlikely) of being a Jack the Ripper victim as Frances Coles or, say, Alice McKenzie. So, what piece of information about Elizabeth Stride's murder am I missing here?

[FrankO]

Hi Evgueni,

As far as I can see you haven't missed anything, because you've already mentioned the main reason why a number of people believe that Stride was killed by the Ripper: the fact that a certain Ripper victim was killed some hour later.

All the best,
Frank

[emlodik]

Hi Evgueni,

As far as I can see you haven't missed anything, because you've already mentioned the main reason why a number of people believe that Stride was killed by the Ripper: the fact that a certain Ripper victim was killed some hour later.

All the best,
Frank

But that seems to be such a weak connection. Wasn't Elizabeth Stride's throat even cut in a different fashion than the other victims? Or am I thinking of somebody else?

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi Evgueni,

As far as I can see you haven't missed anything, because you've already mentioned the main reason why a number of people believe that Stride was killed by the Ripper: the fact that a certain Ripper victim was killed some hour later.

All the best,
Frank

Wich I believe is the most powerful reason. But this is not all. Many things point to JTR. Victimology for one thing. And another powerful thing is the Diemschutz testimony. He provides a reason for JTR to be disturbed. And lo and behold on that very night JTR chooses to move out of what seems to be his "Comfort Zone". Then JTR drops the apron wich seems to trace him back into this "Comfort Zone".
All this adds up to a pretty convincing story. Where as there seems to be no convincing evidence to the contrary. As far as Schwartz is concerned, I dont believe him but if he tells the truth there is no evidence that can say Liz even knew BS Man.

[Mitch Rowe]

But that seems to be such a weak connection. Wasn't Elizabeth Stride's throat even cut in a different fashion than the other victims? Or am I thinking of somebody else?

Some would describe it as different. To me..What it is not that is significant. Its not a slash. Its not a stab and there arent any stab wounds on Liz at all. It doesnt seem like Liz was able to do much to save herself. All these things point away from a domestic or any other kind of altercation and point to an assasin type killing. In fact the wound to me seems as if JTR was in a hurry to kill Stride. Possibly interupted by Diemschutz at that very moment. Who knows.

[DVV]

Hi! I was just wondering if someone could clear something up for a newbie like me. What clue and/or method of deduction makes Liz Stride such a likely candidate of being a Ripper victim that wasn't mutilated because the killer was sacred off? Because so far, aside from the brutal murder of Catherine Eddows an hour later, she looks to me about as likely (or unlikely) of being a Jack the Ripper victim as Frances Coles or, say, Alice McKenzie. So, what piece of information about Elizabeth Stride's murder am I missing here?

Hi Emlodik,
I don't know what you have missed, or what you have read...
Personally, the more I read and re-read about Stride's murder, the more I'm lost...
Good luck!

Amitiés,
David

[FrankO]

But that seems to be such a weak connection. Wasn't Elizabeth Stride's throat even cut in a different fashion than the other victims? Or am I thinking of somebody else?

Hi Evgueni,

I agree, certainly when one considers the circumstances of Stride's murder compared to those of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. However, I don't think that Stride's throat was cut in a very different fashion than the rest. With the exception of Kelly (if she was a Ripper victim), it was also done from right to left, but more superficial and less extensive.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

All this adds up to a pretty convincing story.

Hi Mitch,

Convincing to you, but not to me. Yes, Diemshutz provides a reason why the Ripper may have been disturbed. But I wonder how powerful it really is. Even if Diemshutz was slow, it wouldn't have taken Diemshutz longer than 1 minute to get from the corner of Commercial Road to Dutfield's Yard. So, Stride's killer could have been well on his way 10 or 20 seconds before Diemshutz even made his turn into Berner Street and then Stride still would have just been killed when he stumbled upon her.

Furthermore, if the Ripper was really disturbed by Diemshutz, it would mean that Diemshutz was no more than 10 seconds away from the yard, because the whole act of attacking and killing Stride wouldn't have taken more than that, maybe even just 5 seconds. So, we are to believe that the Ripper either didn't hear a thing until Diemshutz was so close by, or that he only cut Stride's throat after he'd heard the cart and pony approach. Neither seem very plausible to me.

Judging from especially Nichols' murder, it's seems quite likely that the Ripper was quite able to keep a keen eye and ear on his surroundings, enabling him to leave the scene before he could be heard or seen. I'd say that this is actually one of his hallmarks. Yet, even though the sound of a pony's hooves on the pavement would have been a very distinctive and easily audible sound, with Stride's murder he abandones this strategy, only to pick it up again with Eddowes.

The problem I have with the second possibility is that, also judging from the other murders, the Ripper must not have acted too suspiciously right until the moment he struck. In other words, his vicitms didn't suspect a thing until it was too late. So, why would the Ripper have to kill Stride when nothing suspicious had been going on yet and when he knew he wouldn't have time for what actually satisfied him: the mutilations?

As to victimology, it's simply not a given that Stride was prostituting herself on the night she was killed. There are a couple of things that might suggest she wasn't. As to 'his' comfort zone, how are we to know what was or wasn't his comfort zone to begin with? So I don't see how this should point to the Ripper as Stride's killer. The only thing the apron tells us is that the Ripper very likely lived north east of Mitre Square.

All the best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

And another powerful thing is the Diemschutz testimony. He provides a reason for JTR to be disturbed.

...one man's reason is another man's excuse As soon as people get it into their head that Stride's killer "must" have been the Ripper, then Diemschutz's arrival "must" have been the reason he was disturbed. The elephant in the room is that Stride's killer might not have been disturbed, but was done, dusted and gone by the time Louis appeared on the scene.

[FrankO]

...one man's reason is another man's excuse As soon as people get it into their head that Stride's killer "must" have been the Ripper, then Diemschutz's arrival "must" have been the reason he was disturbed.

Good (additional) point, Gareth.

The elephant in the room is that Stride's killer might not have been disturbed, but was done, dusted and gone by the time Louis appeared on the scene.

Very nicely put!

Frank

[Mitch Rowe]

...one man's reason is another man's excuse As soon as people get it into their head that Stride's killer "must" have been the Ripper, then Diemschutz's arrival "must" have been the reason he was disturbed. The elephant in the room is that Stride's killer might not have been disturbed, but was done, dusted and gone by the time Louis appeared on the scene.

Sam,
Im not saying these conclusions are a must. Im saying the first, most logical conclusion(To me at least) is that Diemschutz disturbed JTR and JTR kills Liz for some unknown reason and then moves on to kill Eddowes.

I welcome any alernative explanation and I actually hope those who feel differently will take time to do research and try to find some sort of compelling evidence to support an alternative solution.

I myself have come up with a few "whacky" alternatives from time to time. But supporting my "whacky" alternatives is another matter.

Im not saying the idea of Liz having been killed by a person other than JTR is a "whacky" idea. Im saying its just not the first most logical explanation.

Logic does not always provide an answer or catch a killer but it does provide one with a way to navigate through the "mush".

[Sam Flynn]

Im not saying these conclusions are a must.

I wasn't suggesting that you were, Mitch.

Im saying the first, most logical conclusion(To me at least) is that Diemschutz disturbed JTR and JTR kills Liz for some unknown reason and then moves on to kill Eddowes.

There we differ - that is only the most logical conclusion is if one presumes a priori that the Ripper killed both women. Take that presumption out of the loop and the simplest, if not the most logical, explanation becomes one of the killer already having left by the time Diemschutz arrived.

[Bob Hinton]

Stride not a JTR Victim?

I think the main reason Stride is discounted by many people is that the MO is completely different.

[Mitch Rowe]

I think the main reason Stride is discounted by many people is that the MO is completely different.

Well I beg to differ..She wasnt shot. Pushed out of a window. Beat to death. Poisoned. Ect...
She was cut... To the neck.. With what appears to have been a knife.

[Sam Flynn]

Well I beg to differ..She wasnt shot. Pushed out of a window. Beat to death. Poisoned. Ect...
She was cut... To the neck.. With what appears to have been a knife.

So were quite a few others at the time whom we don't tend to attribute to JTR, and scores of other victims of street crime, before and after the "Autumn of Terror", who also perished due to a wound to the throat. What distinguishes the "classic" Ripper murders is that a cut throat was the least of the victims' worries.