What makes her such a likely candidate?

[Stephen Thomas]

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

Very good questions especially as regards McKenzie and Coles. If JTR wasn't caught then they have to be his possible victims. Prominent experts are lining up here to say that this or that police official said on this or that date that JTR wasn't caught so therefore he wasn't caught. Yet when one of these same police officials (Anderson) states that he WAS caught, he is lambasted for his idiocy. Ask yourself this simple question. If JTR was never caught, how on earth could Macnaghton confidently state that JTR had five victims only? Ripperology sounds scientific but it's often more like the Pick and Mix counter in Woolworths to my mind.

[perrymason]

[QUOTE=c.d.;37329]

Hi Em,

In simple terms, there is no sound argument that explains the inclusion of Liz Stride among the Ripper victims.

Say what???? Do you just ignore any arguments to the contrary?

c.d.

Yes,... my astonished friend. She is the only victim seen being assaulted just before her death, and when Schwartz and Pipeman leave, only BSM and Liz are known to be near that area at all. The yard was empty by the testimony of members. BSM is not very likely Jack....and I dont think that Jack just materializes. And Liz was simply killed. No signs of any further intent....as in no obvious interest in savaging her afterward, or that it was "interrupted". Liz is not in my Canonical dance troupe.

Best regards cd.

[perrymason]

Hi perry,

Surely the obvious difference between Stride and other victims like Tabram is that a mutilated body wasn't found close by soon after their deaths.

Hi Em,

To be fair, "Close by" is not exactly accurate, and the second victim is not even found in the East End where all the other victims were. And "Soon after" is actually 45 minutes later. There is no obvious connection of these murders by their proximity, their locale, the timing, the wounds or the witnessed suspects.

Broadshouldered Man is suspect # 1 for Liz's killer in my book at least, he has access, they are alone in that location, and he is seen accosting her shortly before she is found dead. If we are comparing apples and oranges, Martha has more similarity to the the type of savagery the killer is known for than Liz has. I think you made a great point illustrating that there are non-Canonicals that fit the known profile of the killer better than Liz, and yet, being outside of that roughly 3 month rein of terror, they have been designated as merely unsolved murders. That Liz was a street whore, out after midnight, potentially soliciting,....(a claim that has no substantiation)...and killed by knife during that 3 month period, is I feel the criteria for her inclusion. Hardly a smoking gun.

All the best.

[The Good Michael]

There is no obvious connection of these murders by their proximity, their locale, the timing, the wounds or the witnessed suspects.

Michael,

I will agree with you on this. There is not one obvious thing. There are a few things that can at least bring it to the 50/50 mark.

1. Area: All the murders, including Stride's were committed withing a short enough range of each other that each particular site may still have been in the killer's zone of comfort.

2. Witnesses: As with the others, no one saw a murder committed, or no one came forward with such information.

3. Weapon: A knife was used and the same area of the body was attacked to produce the death stroke, namely, the throat. This indicates to me that the rapid incapacitation of the victim was essential to the killer. Stride is no different in this regard.

4. Prostitution: Same

Other things which I feel, if considered, might raise the canonical level higher

1. Stride was a Gentile: I find it odd that there are so many (though, arguably tenous) Jewish connections in a very heavily Jewish-populated part of London, yet none of the victims had any Jewish connections that we can tell aside from one of them doing some maid service for a Jewish family. A Jewish connection is conspicuous by its absense in my opinion. I should think at least one victim would have been Jewish. No

2. The position of the body: Her legs were drawn up. This indicates to me that the killer was positioning her for some post-murder surgery, but never got around to this. This point is, of course arguable, but it's what is suggested to me.

Cheers,

Mike

[emlodik]

Hi Em,

To be fair, "Close by" is not exactly accurate, and the second victim is not even found in the East End where all the other victims were. And "Soon after" is actually 45 minutes later. There is no obvious connection of these murders by their proximity, their locale, the timing, the wounds or the witnessed suspects.

Broadshouldered Man is suspect # 1 for Liz's killer in my book at least, he has access, they are alone in that location, and he is seen accosting her shortly before she is found dead. If we are comparing apples and oranges, Martha has more similarity to the the type of savagery the killer is known for than Liz has. I think you made a great point illustrating that there are non-Canonicals that fit the known profile of the killer better than Liz, and yet, being outside of that roughly 3 month rein of terror, they have been designated as merely unsolved murders. That Liz was a street whore, out after midnight, potentially soliciting,....(a claim that has no substantiation)...and killed by knife during that 3 month period, is I feel the criteria for her inclusion. Hardly a smoking gun.

All the best.

Oh, Michael! Still having all these voices whisper "shocking new revised facts" into your head? What are we to do with you?

[The Good Michael]

Sorry for the typos in my last post. Teaching English to 180 students, 11 hours per day, and sleeping 4-5 hours a night does little for my concentration. I will try harder. I promise.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike!

You write:
"The position of the body: Her legs were drawn up", and use that to compare Stride with the other "canonicals", implying that she had been made ready for evisceration.

But she was lying completely on her side, Mike, from the outset. In a phoetal position, as it were, with her abdominal region facing the clubhouse wall, a short distance from it. That does not suggest upcoming surgery to me!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

According to Baxter, Stride was brought down to the ground by the killer. I suspect that he could have allowed her to fall and it would have been quicker for him. He cut have just cut and run (as George Bush says). I think the drawn up legs indicates a placing down of the victim. This suggests to me that there was more to follow givn time. If he was hold the knife in one hand and supporting the body with one arm, it seems natural that she would have been brought down to one side or the other. This is speculation, but worth considering in my book.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"According to Baxter, Stride was brought down to the ground by the killer. I suspect that he could have allowed her to fall and it would have been quicker for him. He cut have just cut and run (as George Bush says). I think the drawn up legs indicates a placing down of the victim. This suggests to me that there was more to follow givn time. If he was hold the knife in one hand and supporting the body with one arm, it seems natural that she would have been brought down to one side or the other. This is speculation, but worth considering in my book."

Mike, it is obvious that she was never on her back. The mud on her clothes speaks clearly to us about that. She went down on her left side, very close to the wall, ending up and thereafter staying in a phoetal position.

If the killer was interested in eviscerating her, then why on earth would he FIRST draw her legs up, and THEN turn her on her back? Wouldn´t it make a lot more sense to begin by rolling her over, only THEN to raise her legs, ensuring that they ended up exactly where he wanted them? If he did it while she was on her side, there was an obvious chance that they would slump down again, slipping away on the muddy ground.

No, Mike, I think it is much more credible that she huddled up herself, or that she simply slumped down, the legs bending under the weight, and ending up the way they did. To suppose that the Ripper would have done it in preparation for turning her over seems a very strange suggestion to me.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

No. He brought her down to ground slowly, allowing her weight to slump. This caused her legs to be drawn up. It was as if her knees were buckling. I suggest only that her position indicates that he brought her to the ground and that his act of bringing her to the ground would have allowed him to simply turn her a little given an extra second of time. Again, he didn't draw up her legs. That was a natural happenstance of his lowering her to the ground. I contend that he lowered her because he wasn't finished yet, and that her being on her side was also natural due to his using mostly one arm to support her weight. She would have, of necessity, been dropped to one side, knees drawn up.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

I suggest only that her position indicates that he brought her to the ground and that his act of bringing her to the ground would have allowed him to simply turn her a little given an extra second of time.

A good point and , if true, then we should suppose that the alleged interruption - Diemschutz, whatever - must have happened within the split second required to turn her 90° onto her back. If her killer was prevented from executing this simple action, let alone any intended mutilation, it strikes me that we have another reason to cast serious doubt on the "interruption hypothesis".

[mac-the-kipper]

Hi Mike,A good point and , if true, then we should suppose that the alleged interruption - Diemschutz, whatever - must have happened within the split second required to turn her 90° onto her back. If her killer was prevented from executing this simple action, let alone any intended mutilation, it strikes me that we have another reason to cast serious doubt on the "interruption hypothesis".

Agreed, wholeheartedly. And this is why I suggested that the killer would have heard Diemschutz's pony coming from quite a distance. It couldn't possibly have been that. It must have been, (if interrupted at all) something/one that happened without too much warning.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike,A good point and , if true, then we should suppose that the alleged interruption - Diemschutz, whatever - must have happened within the split second required to turn her 90° onto her back. If her killer was prevented from executing this simple action, let alone any intended mutilation, it strikes me that we have another reason to cast serious doubt on the "interruption hypothesis".

Maybe 2 seconds with regards to setting down the knife or switching hands or something, but I don't see how this negates the interruption concept. It doesn't further it, perhaps, but it may show that the killer of Stride wasn't in such a hurry if he were to slowly bring her to the ground instead of just slashing and running. If we only look at Diemschutz as the interrupter, then his timing was so perfect as to be unimaginable. In the area of a busy club, anything might have spooked him, and so, the interruption theory isn't hanging upon one possibility.

Cheers,

Mike

[perrymason]

Hello all,

A few points...

Liz Stride was possibly lowered to the ground, but it is also possible that she was cut "while falling", as per Baxter.

The mud on her clothing and face indicates she lay as she fell, completely on her left side, drawing her knees into her body.

In the death of Polly, Annie and Kate, it was suggested by medical authorities that they were already incapacitated, and on the ground on their backs, when the throat cut was made. Liz 's body indicates she lay as she landed, on her side.

Polly, Annie and Kate and Mary were on their backs with their legs slightly, or dramatically splayed open.

Stride is the only victim clutching something in death. Breath fresheners. Indicating perhaps that she was completely unaware she was in danger with her company.

It is not believed, nor indicated, that she was moved, or even touched after her cut and landing. All other Canonicals were.

Liz Stride was grabbed from behind by her scarf, and the scarf was twisted tight. There is no indication that any others were choked in that manner.

Liz Stride is the only known person near the gates when she meets BSM, and the yard was empty as per witnesses. Witness and Pipeman left the scene. Indicating that the man who assaulted her minutes before was the only known man at that place during that time.

Liz Stride is the only Canonical with a single wound.

Liz Strides assailant spoke to the witness.

Em made a comment to me that I was revising the details. I am definately drawing different conclusions about the nature of the man that killed her, and why, than almost everyone, but based on the above criteria, which is unrevised. The truth is that the Police really had nothing to go on regarding her killer, and therefore should not have assigned her death to an unknown man who supposedly kills so he can mutilate post mortem. The members of the club went into the street yelling "another woman" had been killed, inferring that she was killed by someone who had killed previously, as she is the first, not second, victim discovered that night. This was in my opinion a rather blatant effort to deflect any potential link to someone at that club being involved.

As I said before it appears that if you choose to allign this death with the other 4, you do so with the knowledge that as per witnesses, the only people that were known to be at that location at approx 12:46, by the gates, or in the yard, was Liz and her assailant. A man who Im fairly sure few people would describe as "cunning", based on his weaving entrance and foiled attempt to take Liz into the street.

Best regards all.

[anna]

Hi all,

I tried to hold my mum when she fainted...she was short but quite plump...and was one hell of a weight when unconcious.I dropped her,and she grazed her face by her cheek bone,because when she fell I grabbed her,and pulled her round so she wouldn't fall on her face.
Funnily enough,when I read that Liz had a graze on her face,I did wonder if Jack had done the same.

I did think that Polly and Annie would have been a lot for someone to hold,unless they were of the build of,say,Stevenson?

As to lowering them gently...

Once the weight is tipped to a certain angle against your body,the inclination is to drop them,as you have an inbuilt warning that tells you that you might get crushed by the weight.....If you've ever tipped a wardrobe..you know what I mean

(Got this from an undertaker at the local cemetry,while he hung around leaning against his highly polished vehicle....having a ciggie.)