What makes her such a likely candidate?

[Izzy]

Long time reader, first time poster. So please be gentle with me.

As a see it the most common argument against Stride being a ripper victim is the lack of mutilation. And the standard answer is that the killer was disturbed, either by (1) Schwarz and Pipeman or (2) Diemschutz. But ever since I started reading about the Whitechapel murders I have had another possibility in mind that I would like some feedback on.

It is my understanding that the place where Stride was found was very badly lit. I am wondering if it is at all possible to mutilate someone ripper-fashion under those circumstances. For example, at first Diemschutz had no idea that there was a body blocking the way. And I believe (but could be mistaken, please correct me in that case) the extent of the injuries to the throat was discovered first when a policeman shone a flashlight on the body.

Well, my main question is: Keeping this in mind, isn't it possible that one can explain the lack of mutilation by a combination of (1) a lack of illumination where the murder occurred and (2) an unwillingness by the murderer to move the body in order to inflict the mutilation?

As English is my second language (yes, I am another one of thoses swedes, although I seldom subscribe to either their pet theories nor conclusions) I apologize in advance for error in spelling and grammar and hope my main points pass the language barrier.

[Fisherman]

Carrotty Nell writes:

"...it was actually the sailor hat I was thinking of - that's why I called him Jolly Jack. But this was Sugden's baby, so pretty authoritative. Sailor hat in Berner Street c.11.45, Sailor hat in Church Lane c.1.30, Sailor hat in Duke's Place c. 1.35 - odd coincidence"

Not really, Nell - in East end venues peaked caps were very, very common.

Wasn´t it the American Hat Corporation that once stated that they were willing to pay just about anything to make Kennedy wear a hat - and to refrain Chrustjev from doing so? But really, there are ways to tell even hatsporting gents apart, even if they wear the same kind of hat. Laurel and Hardy did, and they were not too hard to tell apart. Nor should it produce any difficulty to do so with one respectably clad gentleman in a cutaway and a shabby, rough type in loose-fitting attire. Wearing the same type of hat won´t make up for the rest.

All the best, Nell!

Fisherman

[Celesta]

What sticks in my mind about this victim is the approach. Schwartz saw the drunk man grab Stride and push her down into the street. In other words there were witnesses. To anyone's knowledge, no one witnessed an approach like this for any other Ripper victim.

She still could have been one of Jack's victims. The timing would have been tight though, between Schwartz's roaming drunk and the appearance of a new thug, JTR, on the scene. If the drunk was the Ripper, he must have been sloshed indeed to act so aggressively in front of witnesses.

Nell has a point about the hat, too.

[Hellrider]

Of course not..I guess in the case of the Whitechapel Murderer/Jack the MO was used to be able to ascertain who MIGHT have died by his hand because many people died violently in those times and circumstances

[c.d.]

Why is it that serial killers are not allowed to even slightly deviate from their previous M.O.'s? Is it some sort of union rule?

c.d.

[Dan Norder]

I think there should be a rule here....no two implausible arguments can be used to create a Canonization.

And who do you think should decide what's an implausible argument? Surely it can't be someone who seriously claims Jack may not have killed more than one victim...

[Carrotty Nell]

Carrotty Nell writes:

Wow, Nell - that is quite a broad spectre you´re allowing for there: MArshall described his man as a respectably clad man, whereas Lawendes guy was nothing of the sort. Shabby, was the expression used.

Fisherman

Hello Fisherman, it was actually the sailor hat I was thinking of - that's why I called him Jolly Jack. But this was Sugden's baby, so pretty authoritative. Sailor hat in Berner Street c.11.45, Sailor hat in Church Lane c.1.30, Sailor hat in Duke's Place c. 1.35 - odd coincidence.

[KatBradshaw]

...but by the time that report came out, Nell, the "Double Event" had already happened. Kat was asking whether anyone, in the short time betwen "Event 1" and "Event 2" attributed Stride's murder to the Ripper. I daresay some did, but we might never know because the two crimes were publicised together, and have been inextricably linked in people's minds ever since.

Yes Sam Flynn that was what I was asking. I just wondered if there were any police notes or records that the murder of Liz was imediately attriubuted to JTR. I am sure that there were conversations about her being the work of the ripper but would have been interesting to see it in print. As you say all of the newspaper reports have the double event reported together. Although we have to remember that news papers often get it wrong. I have a front page asserting that Princess Diana had survived the crash that killed her. And many papers covered the story that the Titanic was ok and heading for New York.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Evgueni!

You will notice in time, that many threads here tend to make odd turns!

All the best
Jukka

[emlodik]

I think Mr Hinton has made a valid point when he says many might discount Stride as she is a departure from previous MO, if only based on the fact he was likely seen before killing.

Youll note that I suggest Broadshouldered Man, even though most might assign him footnote status......would be Jack...as seen by Schwartz. If Schwartzs account is relayed to us fairly accurately, Broadshouldered Man is not only the most likely man to eventually kill Liz after being seen "assaulting" her minutes from the time, and just feet from "the location of her murder.....but he is also then the most likely man for some to be Jack as well, because the yard was entered and sworn empty just before BS Man arrives, by Eagles and Laves testimony, and the only three men known to have been anywhere near the gates from 12:40 until 1 are BSMan, Schwartz, and across the street, Pipeman.

I know many feel Jack changes MO like socks, or showed his true "calling" if you will when left alone indoors with a woman, but surely those who feel that way dont expect others to imagine that Jack just materializes in Dutfields Yard at the last moment. That is asking a little much,...first we must buy she only had one cut because there was an interruption ....a claim that is quite frankly without any substantive proof and in fact contrary to Dr Blackwells estimates..but no evidence is seen in either the deceased's demeanor or as partial acts.....and now Jack is not the only man known to be onsite after 12:46...BSMan,..... but he somehow appears, independently?

I think there should be a rule here....no two implausible arguments can be used to create a Canonization.

I think to pin this on Jack you'll need to assume BS Man was him....as that makes 3 implausibles. 1), that he changed his MO to just murder the first of his double-header night,...and that he was interrupted, 2,.... and then 3,... that BSMan is not him.

Best regards all.

You know, I think I'm starting to regret I even started this thread...

I think Mr Hinton has made a valid point when he says many might discount Stride as she is a departure from previous MO, if only based on the fact he was likely seen before killing.

Youll note that I suggest Broadshouldered Man, even though most might assign him footnote status......would be Jack...as seen by Schwartz. If Schwartzs account is relayed to us fairly accurately, Broadshouldered Man is not only the most likely man to eventually kill Liz after being seen "assaulting" her minutes from the time, and just feet from "the location of her murder.....but he is also then the most likely man for some to be Jack as well, because the yard was entered and sworn empty just before BS Man arrives, by Eagles and Laves testimony, and the only three men known to have been anywhere near the gates from 12:40 until 1 are BSMan, Schwartz, and across the street, Pipeman.

I know many feel Jack changes MO like socks, or showed his true "calling" if you will when left alone indoors with a woman, but surely those who feel that way dont expect others to imagine that Jack just materializes in Dutfields Yard at the last moment. That is asking a little much,...first we must buy she only had one cut because there was an interruption ....a claim that is quite frankly without any substantive proof and in fact contrary to Dr Blackwells estimates..but no evidence is seen in either the deceased's demeanor or as partial acts.....and now Jack is not the only man known to be onsite after 12:46...BSMan,..... but he somehow appears, independently?

I think there should be a rule here....no two implausible arguments can be used to create a Canonization.

I think to pin this on Jack you'll need to assume BS Man was him....as that makes 3 implausibles. 1), that he changed his MO to just murder the first of his double-header night,...and that he was interrupted, 2,.... and then 3,... that BSMan is not him.

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

Carrotty Nell writes:

"Very little is ever said about the sighting which Sugden spotted in the Star, of our Jolly Jack in Church Lane at about 1.30 am who seems to match the suspect descriptions of Marshall and Lawende. "

Wow, Nell - that is quite a broad spectre you´re allowing for there: MArshall described his man as a respectably clad man, whereas Lawendes guy was nothing of the sort. Shabby, was the expression used.
But Church Lane - now there´s something that is genuinely interesting!

The best, Nell!

Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

...but by the time that report came out, Nell, the "Double Event" had already happened. Kat was asking whether anyone, in the short time betwen "Event 1" and "Event 2" attributed Stride's murder to the Ripper. I daresay some did, but we might never know because the two crimes were publicised together, and have been inextricably linked in people's minds ever since.

Just to add an interesting aside to that comment. As far as I'm aware the first written reference to 'Jack the Ripper' occurs in the notes of Elizebeth Strides preist (check Andy and Sue Palours book), where he claims Liz was a victim of Jack the Ripper.

So you might claim that Liz was the first and only victim of Jack the Ripper, the rest got done by leather apron

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

Clearly they are thinking of one individual (or pair) having committed both.

...but by the time that report came out, Nell, the "Double Event" had already happened. Kat was asking whether anyone, in the short time betwen "Event 1" and "Event 2" attributed Stride's murder to the Ripper. I daresay some did, but we might never know because the two crimes were publicised together, and have been inextricably linked in people's minds ever since.

[Carrotty Nell]

Is there any contemporary account that says that Liz was considered a Ripper victim before Catherine was found?? I am only asking as I don't know.

Hello Kat

This is The Star on 1 October:

"THE terror of Whitechapel has walked again, and this time has marked down two victims, one hacked and disfigured beyond discovery, the other with her throat cut and torn. .... Crafty blood-thirst is written on every line of Sunday morning's doings, The rapid walk from Berner-street to Aldgate, to find a fresh victim, the reckless daring of the deed - in itself the most dangerous and cunning of all the murderer's resources - these all point to some epileptic outbreak of homicidal mania."

Clearly they are thinking of one individual (or pair) having committed both.

Very little is ever said about the sighting which Sugden spotted in the Star, of our Jolly Jack in Church Lane at about 1.30 am who seems to match the suspect descriptions of Marshall and Lawende. This to me is just as important a factor to consider as the circumstances of the two crimes, the type of wounds etc.