Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Tom_Wescott]

Jack would have had to have been standing behind the right gate to make the pony shy and remain unseen by Diemschutz. I don't understand, Harry, why it's so hard to accept that the pony shied from Stride's body.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Yep, Tom. Plus Diemschitz firmly stated that the gates were wide open as he drove in, and I think that would have left Jack no room behind that gate.

The best, Fisherman

[harry]

We do not know what type of cart it was,or where the seat was situated, but a good guess is that whatever type,the driver would have been behind the pony with enough room to mount and dismount.
As I understand it,and as fisherman says,the gate was open,leaving no room for anyone to be behind it.The feet were near but not up to the gate,and another good guess is that if the killer was still in the yard he would have been standing near the head of Stride,as the cart turned to enter so that would put him at least10'into the yard at that point.
On each side of the yard,from the gate inwards,a brick wall ran for 15',before on the right side(going in) it joined the club building,and on the left a row of cottages.
If the cart was stopped by the steps,of club or cottage that would put both pony and cart well beyond what I estimate,and well beyond the body.I know of no other steps.
As the pony entered the yard,it would most surely have been guided by Diemshultz,and pressure of the reins might cause it to shie and bear left towards the wall on that side.According to the book I quote,the pony shied and stopped some distance inside the yard.So maybe it shied more than once.
Remember that Diemschultz remarks(as do others)the blackness of the yard,
and that all he could see was a dark bundle.Too much to right or left and he might have missed it,so looking straight down,is a reasonable assumption,bearing in mind,that Diemschultz does not specify.So be careful.Assuming that Diemschultz might have been looking back towards the gate and saw the bundle there,it would put the horse well into the yard,and away goes the theory that he stopped for either the body or smell of blood.
Now I do not know the source material others are guided by.Mine is the books I have read,and all claim to have been well researched and factual,and my calculations and assumptions,are based on these claims.Of course Ripper authors themselves researched other peoples documetation,so they in turn would have to rely on the correctness of those writings.
As to where Diemschultz sat,I have seen many carts with bench type seats,that being so ,and he being alone,I guess the centre would have been as good a place as any.Especially as the entrance was so narrow,and his judgement on guiding the pony better from centre.A bench type seat would be more useful for seating more than one person,if the cart was loaded,so they were more popular.
I believe that covers the questions.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"maybe it shied more than once"

...and that is where I get of the train. Or should I say shy?

The best, Harry!

Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,
After all these posts about him or her, I'd really like to know the pony's name.
"Lipski" would be a nice one.
And why not "Lizzie" if a female?

Amitiés,
David

ps: I really read "Nils" when young, at the time of my "Scandinavian" period (Hamsun,Lagerkvist...very classic, I'm afraid). Good memories to me.

[Fisherman]

After what has perspired on this thread, David, I would move for Dizzy...

The best!
Fisherman

[Scotland Yard]

Hello folks!

This is my first post to the Casebook.

I've been 'lurking' for some time now...though not, I hasten to add, in a shadowy corner with malicious intent! More as someone who's been greatly impressed by the resource that this site represents and also by the thoughtful and courteous community that exists here. Reading the forum threads with so many interesting discussions on so many different topics has provided a fascinating supplement to my other JTR readings. Its reassuring to learn that, despite the gruesome nature of the Whitechapel murders, the people that are attracted to the case are such pleasant company.

That being so (and if you'll indulge me in a somewhat long-winded first post!) I feel compelled to sign up and give an account of a Whitechapel excursion I undertook just yesterday and share some of my thoughts and impressions with you. No doubt many of you will already have visited the actual murder sites and be familiar with their locations. It was my first time and, seeing as the trip went a long way to confirming my own thinking on Elizabeth Stride's murder and the 'Double Event' I thought that this thread would be the best place to post.

My interest in the Ripper case was brought into sharp focus recently when I bought a copy of Philip Sugden's excellent 'Complete History of Jack The Ripper' as recommended by the Casebook. As I'm sure most here will agree, this book paints an excellent portrait of life in the Victorian East End and cuts through the myths to provide a superbly detailed sense of the 'reality' of the Whitechapel murders. I'm a Scotsman by birth but have lived in South London for the better part of 15 years, so it was both easy and inevitable that with my curiosity piqued, I would make my way to the Ripper's old haunting ground to get a better idea for myself of the geography of the area.

At first, I resisted the inclination, feeling that searching out a number of old murder sites was both a macabre and questionable thing for me to be doing with my spare time. I also didn't want to join one of the tours, partly because I felt I had a good grounding in the basic facts and partly because I wanted to be left with a bit of freedom to explore, unhindered by a large crowd or a tour guide's time restrictions. Finally though, with my wife reasuring me that my motivations were the same ones shared by armchair detectives the world over, I found the time to do the walk yesterday morning and, equipped with Richard Jones's excellent directions, I arrived at Whitechapel Tube station at 10:30.

Whitechapel itself seems to possess much the same atmosphere it must have done 120 years ago. A bustling place of cheap shops, market stalls aplenty and a thriving ethnic community. Being in no particular hurry, it was fascinating to drift along and apply my imagination to an exercise in time-travel. It wasn't difficult to listen to the shouts, conversations and activities around me and place myself back at the time of the murders. Within a few short minutes I was standing at the spot Mary Nichols met her demise and was struck by just how close this was to the main thoroughfare of Whitechapel Road. I have to say, looking down at the small parking space that now marks the place, I once again questioned my presence there. The very idea of visiting the place of someone's grisly murder seems ironically 'Victorian' and yet there seems to be some need in people to 'touch' certain historical events and to 'make real' a place they may have only read about. My thoughts on the matter weren't helped by the presence across the street of some hard-hatted builders who added to my sense of awkwardness and I quickly moved on to Hanbury street. All in all, my first encounter with a Ripper site was extremely interesting but almost upsetting as well. There's something horribly banal about the reality of murder and stripped of any 'romantic' mythology, the Whitechapel murders are certainly no different.

The route from this murder site to Hanbury street is through a housing estate which Richard Jones warns not to enter alone after dark as it is not considered safe. In this regard then, some areas of Whitechapel have perhaps remained unchanged. Although the side of Hanbury street that number 29 was part of has long since been demolished, the opposite side of the street remains and gives a good idea of how the street must have been at the time of the murders. Indeed, there was one or two houses round the corner from adjoining Wilkes street that are so delapidated they could almost have been untouched since 1888.

And so to the part of my walk that I found most thought-provoking in terms of getting into the culprit's 'mind-set' and theorising about the murders themselves. Like many people who've studied the case, I can see the reasons to doubt Liz Stride being an actual Ripper victim. But having personally walked from what was Berner street to Mitre Square, my own feeling is that Stride did indeed die at the hands of the Ripper.

Here's my reasoning on that: Just across the street from the passage that goes into Mitre square is St Botolph's Aldgate. In 1888, the police offered the local prostitutes immunity from arrest if they confined their soliciting to the 'island' on which the church stands. Hence it was known as 'Prostitute Island.' Now, given that the Ripper had already killed at least two prostitutes by this time and knowing that people were far more 'on alert' than they had been, why would he expose himself to unnecessary danger by choosing to hunt his next victim in a location known as the best spot for picking up women in the area? Particularly given that the City police force had been instructed to keep a close eye on prostitutes.

I don't see JTR as deliberately setting out to be 'daring' that night. His first and only real instinct was to satisfy his own twisted ends. On this basis, its reasonable to assume that he would first seek out a 'safe' victim where prostitutes are less thick on the ground, like the area round Berner Street. I see our man setting out with the specific intent of murdering and mutilating but in so far as planning for this is concerned, his cautionary thinking goes no further than 'where' he's going to hunt. He's willing to take risks but he's not entirely lacking in common sense.

As far as events in Dutfield's Yard are concerned, I go along with much of the 'Stride as JTR victim' thinking. He kills her but, for whatever reason, is forced to leave her unmutilated. Unsatisfied but with his blood-lust now in flow, he needs to avail himself of another victim and wishing to waste no time - (as he must have known that Stride was sure to be discovered soon) where would he go? Throwing caution to the winds and knowing the ways of the local area after dark, he made straight for the first place he knew he was likely to pick up another victim quickly, Prostitute Island. The very place he rejected going to earlier in the evening -possibly the place he rejected the night he killed Chapman - as too exposed.

Botched as the Stride attempt may have been, he's just killed one woman and walked -for all we know- calmly away. His danders up and he's feeling empowered, adrenalized and maybe even a little indestructable. Only now does he decide to take a chance on the location around St Botolph's.

I timed myself circumnavigating what would have been Dutfield's Yard by going right onto Fairclough Street, right onto Back Church Lane and then on towards St Botolph's Aldgate in order to arrive at Duke's Place, leading to Mitre Square. It took me a little over ten minutes at a reasonable but not overtly brisk pace.

(*As a side note, another thing that really struck me on this walk was just how unexaggerated are the accounts that describe Whitechapel as a warren or a labyrinth. The place really is a confusing mess of alleys, side roads and lanes. Without paying careful attention to the directions and my 'A-Z' it would have been very easy to get lost. There seems little doubt to me that our man was a local.)

Assuming Jack left Dutfield's Yard no later than 1:00 am, he could still have been in a position to approach Kate Eddowes from anytime between 1:10 and the time when Lawende and his companions saw the couple lingering on a corner near the entrance to Mitre Square a little after 1:30. Eddowes was only released from the Bishopsgate Police Station at 1:00 and was therefore not likely to be have been in position to meet a killer that's walked from Dutfield's Yard until at least 1:10 herself. Even if they did not meet straight away and even taking into account the potential imprecision of reported times, the window of opportunity for them to do so is very narrow, certainly no more than 25 minutes. (Admittedly, there's another assumption here and that is that the woman Lawende and co. saw was indeed Eddowes.)

Would our man have lingered 25 minutes on or near the location to zone in on another victim, knowing that there will be a lot of police activity emanating from Dutfield's Yard just ten minutes away? I reckon its unlikey. But remember, it may have taken a short while to sweet talk Eddowes into joining him. Naturally, what with a killer about and with only just getting out of the nick, Eddowes would have been at least a little cautious.

But the clincher for me is that he probably DIDN'T linger for 25 minutes. It probably took the killer much longer to walk from Dutfield's yard to the area near Mitre Square than merely 10 minutes. He was probably trying to appear casual, he may even have been ducking in and out of dark doorways or going out of his way to avoid other pedestrians. He might not even have taken the quickest route. Which means that the window of opportunity to meet Eddowes narrows even further. I believe this actually enhances rather than detracts from the possibility of the same man killing both Stride and Eddowes. Put simply, the smaller the window of opportunity for Eddowes to meet with a killer walking from Dutfield's Yard, the bigger the coiincidence that Stride was murdered by a seperate individual.

What it boils down to is that I find the timing of Stride's murder -along with her body being placed on the ground, Ripper-style, before being killed - 'dovetails' far, far too neatly and perfectly with Eddowes murder to be mere coincidence as it would have to be if Eddowes killer was not the same man that killed Stride.

This, of course, is merely my own speculation on the matter and I doubt I'm adding anything new here. It just seems to me that the location of Prostitute Island so close to Mitre Square is a very exposed location for the Ripper to choose as a 'preferred' hunting ground that night. No doubt many will see holes in the idea, not least of which, I suppose, is the very big assumption that JTR wouldn't be the kind of person to do what what was least expected of him.

As has been said on this board many times, in all liklihood we'll never know for sure, and maybe we're all just indulging in a fascinating parlour game. Having said that, there's always the possibility of new finds, some startling new advance in forensic technology or even some genuinely startling future technology.

I've always felt that something akin to the 'Wormcam' technology as described so plausibly by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter in their book 'The Light Of Other Days' is our only real hope of finding out the truth about the Ripper's identity. Quantum Time Travel seems to become less and less of a far-fetched sci-fi possibility every day, even if it has unfortunate implications (as described in the novel) for our personal privacy.

I suspect that in reality JTR was much more likley to have been a distressingly dull local nobody- a vile but cleverly self-contained sociopath -than any of the suspects yet named. I'd like to think that, whoever he was and whatever happened to him, some small part of his clearly mislocated conscience emerged at night to bring some small justice where no human court ever did.

Regards,
Gary

[c.d.]

Hi Gary,

Let me be the first one to welcome you to the boards. That was an excellent first post.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gary, and welcome to the boards! I agree with c.d - that was an impressive post!

I´ll just test you on a point if I may?

You write:
"What it boils down to is that I find the timing of Stride's murder -along with her body being placed on the ground, Ripper-style, before being killed "

Now, all the other women were found on their backs, but Stride was lying on her left side, legs drawn up in a fetal position. To me, that is very far away from "Ripper style". Unless you argue that being on the ground was Ripper style? But then again, there are only som many places where you can end up with a cut neck...

The best, Gary!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi Gary, and welcome to the boards! I agree with c.d - that was an impressive post!

I´ll just test you on a point if I may?

You write:
"What it boils down to is that I find the timing of Stride's murder -along with her body being placed on the ground, Ripper-style, before being killed "

Now, all the other women were found on their backs, but Stride was lying on her left side, legs drawn up in a fetal position. To me, that is very far away from "Ripper style". Unless you argue that being on the ground was Ripper style? But then again, there are only som many places where you can end up with a cut neck...

The best, Gary!
Fisherman

Hi all,

I'll add my welcome and praise Gary. Well worded introduction to your thoughts.

But my friend from Sweden has cited one major problem with "appearances". Although she is a part time prostitute, and she is out after midnight, very near to the empty dark yard where she is killed, and she is killed during the Autumn of Horror, on a night when we believe the Ripper was out working....when she is found it is clear that no attempt had been made to move Liz from the postion she very likely hit the ground in,...on her left side. The knees drawing in towards the body is likely a reflexive protective gesture, as she is on the ground and cut while he stood over her, or while she fell he twisted the scarf he had sideways, and drew the blade across her throat ....dropping her.

That makes the lack of mutilations almost soley dependant on Diemshutz arriving at the very moment she is on the ground. Because in less than a second, Jack would have flipped her on her back...and then parted her legs. And lets not forget that the approaching cart and pony were treading on cobblestones, and would have been heard long before the last second.

Although Liz fits the general theme and is a victim on a "work" night, its just not reasonable to place this murder on Jack with what evidence we do have.

Best regards Gary, all.

[Scotland Yard]

Hello again,

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I hope I haven't hijacked the thread by dragging in points already covered in detail elsewhere. On the other hand, reading some of the exchanges earlier in this thread, this is clearly a place where no stone is left unturned!

To clarify my admittedly wishy-washy statement concerning Liz being placed on the ground 'ripper-style', the emphasis was really on the action rather than the posture. She was deliberately placed on the ground before her throat was cut. I can't believe she lay down there of her own accord, it being so muddy. Two of the previous victims, three if you count Martha Tabram, were placed on the ground first before being slayed. In exactly the same way Eddowes would be less than an hour later. Surely the medical evidence would have indicated more blood down Liz's front if the wound to the throat itself had been the cause of what 'dropped her'.

It just seems an extremely calculated thing to do and also an amazingly coincidental thing to do if the actions of a possibly spontaneous and entirely seperate murderer.

I'd find it more conceivable that the double event was perperated by two seperate murderers working different sections of the city but in cahoots, deliberately attempting to time their attacks to give the impression that the 'Ripper' was a single daring individual. One happier and more bloodthirsty in his work and the other drawing the line at a cut throat.

On a more plausible note, I just see no reason whatever to accept the possibility that the sound of Diemshutz's approach wasn't in fact what gave the Ripper pause and he hid in the shadows of the yard. Its also entirely conceivable that the proximity of the door to the working club made him nervous or perhaps a noise from within startled him some moments before and he escaped through the gates. It seems reasonable to me that the sheer randomness of nearby events could very easily have contributed to Liz being left where and how she fell.

[joelhall]

Hello again,

I'd find it more conceivable that the double event was perperated by two seperate murderers working different sections of the city but in cahoots, deliberately attempting to time their attacks to give the impression that the 'Ripper' was a single daring individual. One happier and more bloodthirsty in his work and the other drawing the line at a cut throat.

i second that. i also believe that being on her side was typical. i see the victims as having their throats cut lying on their sides, or turned almost face down, for several reasons, not the least of which is to avoid spray to the killer. ive often thought this could be after a blow to the throat or head, to get them down quickly, the marks to the face done whilst muffling screams as they were dragged to a safe spot, rather than held as the throat was cut (a dead-cert to make them scream alot), possibly also choking the victims with something like a handkerchief round the neck. i believe they were then turned onto their backs for the slicing & trophy taking, making these quick attacks, with low chance of evidence being carried away (except the harvested organs).

david, you reading this? im letting it all out bit by bit

great posts gary & welcome to the boards.

[Sam Flynn]

rather than held as the throat was cut a dead-cert to make them scream alot....

...not with a strong hand clamped over the mouth, pulling the head back in order to expose the throat. I'm not suggesting that this happened in these instances, but it's possible.

[harry]

There seems to be some disbelief that the killer might have waited a minute or two after killing Stride,doing nothing.Consider what witnesses described.A yard that was so dark,that Diemschultz could only make out a dark object,and another person had to feel along the wall.I believe both.It is a trick of the eyesight.That darkness would have lasted for a minute or two untill the eyes became conditioned to the light.
While the killer may have killed near the gate,the darkness where she was found may have prevented or deterred him from going farther with mutilations untill his eyes became accustomed to better conditions.
Or he may have waited to kill untill the eyes became accustomed.
Then Diemschultz arrives.

[Sam Flynn]

While the killer may have killed near the gate

That's unlikely, Harry - the blood had flown from her neck where she lay, and it's almost certain that she was killed on that spot, rather than further "East" in the gateway.

the darkness where she was found may have prevented or deterred him from going farther with mutilations untill his eyes became accustomed to better conditions.

On top of Berner Street being an odd place for him to be wandering on the off-chance of finding an easy victim, the "ill-using" episode and the Schwartz/Pipeman hoo-hah, the busy club with an active audience singing within, the "interruption" scenario, partial and comparatively superficial wound to the throat and the lack of mutilations - we must now factor in the additional complication of the killer being thwarted by dark-adaptation. How many more such anomalies must one tolerate before one accepts the possibility that this really wasn't Jack at all?