Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Richard,

As has been said before, those are obscure newspaper stories that are unsupported by other evidence and which are not apparent in any police files.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Here's another example of that: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...4-89#highlight

It's the case of 24 year old Harry Patrick, who cut the throat of his 19 year old girlfriend Rachel Bailey down to the vertebrae while she was lying in bed. This was on 23 November 1885 in Poplar, not too far away from Spitalfields/Whitechapel.

Hello, Frank.

Very interesting. Another case I've missed but which perfectly illustrates the point about domestic throat cutting. Thanks for that. Which I'd known about it before my book was published.

That Old Bailey website indeed is a gem of interesting information. I must do more serious attempts to really dig into it.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Hi Howard,
Dan is correct in mentioning noise being heard at the time of the Nichols murder, a witness in Brady street told the press, she heard the sounds of a woman who seemed to have fallen, and footsteps running away.
Also another witness claimed she was awaken by her daughter saying 'Someone is trying to get in our door' it was then the mother heard a woman drying out 'Help' the sound reflected the person being out of breath, and the impression was she was being accosted, even if no one else was heard,she then appeared to venture further up Bucks Row where she was again reported to have been heard[ the same out of breath] but a passing train stopped any further activity.
I have said many a time that in my opinion our killer was a brute, and manhandled his victims, and not 'Mr Charmer' as many interpret.
There is evidence of such a man in all the C5, and I can also see it in the case of Tabram.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

He killed her because he was Jack the Ripper

That's a teleological premise - it helps to divorce the incident itself from any preconceptions. When one does, it has all the trappings of a rather ordinary assault, and little else.

and because if she had blabbed to the police , he might have been caught.

...as the man who wrestled a woman to the pavement. He wouldn't have to have been a "Macavity" to wriggle out of that scenario. Indeed, it's doubtful whether a streetwalker would have even considered going to the police at all. As others have noted, Liz and her kind were likely to have seen far worse than a bruised bottom and a muddy skirt in their time.

if this was a domestic row why didn't the killer just beat her up ? If he intended to kill her why did he cut her throat and not stab her or strangle her ?

Glenn has answered that point rather well.

[FrankO]

Because throat-cutting was not uncommon in domestic crimes during this time period and there are several examples of this (see the most well known one, where the gardener John Browne cut his wife's throat and stabbed her in their home in Westminster the same night as the Double Event).

Hi Glenn,

Here's another example of that: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brows...4-89#highlight

It's the case of 24 year old Harry Patrick, who cut the throat of his 19 year old girlfriend Rachel Bailey down to the vertebrae while she was lying in bed. This was on 23 November 1885 in Poplar, not too far away from Spitalfields/Whitechapel.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Still, the odds of another throat-cutter preying on a hapless prostitute in generally the same fashion (please do not bring mutilation into this as this is NOT what I'm talking about), seems to me to be somewhat small."

...which is why Stride is even discussed, I think. And it is a good point, no doubt about it.
What I think is too seldom added to this equation, however, is the fact that the papers and the talk on the streets were absolutely crammed with reports on how cutting a throat results in death. I believe that for examle MacKenzie was a victim that paid dearly for the well-spread information on Jackīs activities.
The fact that cutting a neck kills swiftly and safely if carried out extensively, is something that will have been embedded into the minds of each potential killer in the East End, not to forget that most such potential killers would have been able to understand that a slit throat would lead the police interest in the direction of the Ripper.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Howard Brown writes:

"He left no clues that the police could detect. It doesn't necessarily mean that he left no clues."

No, Howard. But it DOES mean that he took care enough to bring his weapon with him, and that he did not drop any of his belongings on the spot, just as he did not raise the sound level in am manner that evoked peoples interest, and in all probability that he did not leave the sites covered in blood.
And since that is what we have to go by, longs as we donīt marry ourselves to the idea that it MUST point to an organized killer, it must be accepted that the evinced behaviour points in that direction to a significant extent.

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

He killed her because he was Jack the Ripper and because if she had blabbed to the police , he might have been caught. He couldn't take any chances?

So why showing himself off to witnesses during an assault (Schwartz and possibly Pipeman), who also could identify him? I can understand why he killed her, but I can't see why the Ripper would behave like BS did if he was scared of people blabbing to the police. If Liz put up a fight and people were coming to the svene, wouldn't it be more likely that the Ripper took off?

If Liz was killed by someone else , you have to ask a similar question to the one proposed : if this was a domestic row why didn't the killer just beat her up ? If he intended to kill her why did he cut her throat and not stab her or strangle her ?

Because throat-cutting was not uncommon in domestic crimes during this time period and there are several examples of this (see the most well known one, where the gardener John Browne cut his wife's throat and stabbed her in their home in Westminster the same night as the Double Event).
Just like mutilation also is common in domestic crimes.

All the best

[The Good Michael]

Simon,

That is certainly plausible as well as the interruption scenario. Another possibility is that she was harassing him, wanting some money right now. Maybe as they were chatting she saw something about him that looked familiar, and she made a joke about him being the Ripper, only it was too close to home.
Endless possibilities. Yet...

Because we are all stubborn SOBs (aside from your truly), we can shoot down any argument for or against Stride, and with logical counter scenarios. I think everyone has to be commended for this ability. There is one pro-canon argument that cannot be refuted, and that is the relative lack of violent throat-cutting episodes committed in Spitalfields. Oh, there are the odd ones, to be sure, but not during this few month period in which the 5 canonicals were murdered. These five frame a time border which may or may not be valid, or important. Still, the odds of another throat-cutter preying on a hapless prostitute in generally the same fashion (please do not bring mutilation into this as this is NOT what I'm talking about), seems to me to be somewhat small. This then must tip the scales at least a bit in the direction of canon, mustn't it? Remember that I have dismissed all other arguments because they have all been refuted by others, leaving only the frequency of throat-cutting of unfortunates, in this particular area, in this particular few-month period.

Cheers,

Mike

[Simon Owen]

Hi Simon,

Why didn't he simply stop and hotfoot it out of there after roughing Liz up, leaving her alive, if the venue was so unsuitable to his purpose? Surely he'd have known that from the outset, not only by the Schwartz and Pipeman "intervention", but also by the activity in the club-house itself? OK, so Liz might have blabbed - but there was no guarantee she'd recognise him. Even if she had, and he'd been subsequently caught, the worst he might have faced was a slap on the wrist or a fine - he may even have escaped punishment altogether. As we've seen, the Old Bailey didn't come down all that hard on rapists, and I very much doubt that comparatively minor "ill-use" cases would have progressed much beyond the local judiciary.

He killed her because he was Jack the Ripper and because if she had blabbed to the police , he might have been caught. He couldn't take any chances.

If Liz was killed by someone else , you have to ask a similar question to the one proposed : if this was a domestic row why didn't the killer just beat her up ? If he intended to kill her why did he cut her throat and not stab her or strangle her ?

[Howard Brown]

As far as being allegedly careful to not be noticed, there are reports of noises having been heard from the Nichols,(murder)- Dan Norder from a previous post...

Just for the sake of accuracy,you didn't mean that noises were heard at the Nichols murder did you,Dan ? I believe that the first murder with known noises was the following one, the Chapman murder.

Thanks

How

[Howard Brown]

Dear Glenn:

When I mentioned a couple of cases which are modern serial killing cases,I wasn't attempting to compare these murder skeins to the WM, but only mentioned them for the two pattern-breakers in those skeins and how it might have happened in the lone instance of Stride in the WM skein.

Hope all is well,old bean

How

[Howard Brown]

Why didn't he simply stop and hotfoot it out of there after roughing Liz up, leaving her alive, if the venue was so unsuitable to his purpose? Surely he'd have known that from the outset, not only by the Schwartz and Pipeman "intervention", but also by the activity in the club-house itself? OK, so Liz might have blabbed - but there was no guarantee she'd recognise him. -Sammy

Dear Sam:

Isn't it possible...just as possible, that Pipeman arrived after BSMan began making his move to get her to go off with him ( Simon Owen's comments and idea..) or maybe off into the Yard, which I mentioned before ? By the time Pipeman arrives, BSMan is enraged at her for turning down either of the two scenarios and as soon as Pipeman heads off, he takes her into the Yard and kills her? Is it me or do many people think little of the likelihood that BSMan was "there first" ? Lets consider that BSMan was there first and chew on this...

In the interim between BSMan's original "move" on Stride and the arrival of Pipeman, there may have been a bit of a buildup of rage originating in the possible belief by the killer that his request to Stride of an offer after being proposed was subsequently rejected for reasons we do not know. We do know that she appeared to have rejected "an" offer and had done so prior to that according to witnesses who saw her coochie-coo with one other man that evening.

Not to argue with you , doesn't it seem more likely that Pipeman arrived afterwards if you compare the two possibilities in the long run?

Again, is it such a stretch to imagine that BSMan-as-Ripper or BSMan-as-random killer... didn't care, as you mention the noisy schnooks in the IWMEC and that they would have been an issue?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And certainly the Broadshouldered Man's actions are well in line with what known serial killers did to try to subdue victims.

Only in your own mind.

Also pay attention to the fact we are not talking about other 'known serial killers' here, but the man who committed at least the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Stick to the case evidence of those instead of the rather tedious comparisons with modern serial killers (not that I know of any who wastes time and increaes the risk factor by unnecessary and silly actions like pulling a woman out on the street in front of spectators anyway).

[Dan Norder]

Anyone who argues that BS:s rowdy and careless behaviour is compatible with the Ripper's (who was careful not to be seen or noticed during or after any of his attacks) is quite mad and should be locked into an asylum together with Kosminski.

You seem to not be paying attention to the case evidence but to the mythic image of Jack built up over the years.

The Broadshouldered Man appeared to be trying to subdue a woman. We don't know exactly how Jack subdued the others, or if he used the same methods each time. This could very well be Jack, and having been spotted could very easily explain why the victim was not mutilated.

As far as being allegedly careful to not be noticed, there are reports of noises having been heard from the Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murders, and reports of someone being seen with a victim immediately before they were murdered in the Chapman and Eddowes murders (and possible Kelly's, depending upon when she was killed). If any of these reports are true (some undoubtedly are not, but most authorities believe at least a couple of them), then Jack didn't seem to be as careful as you seem to believe.

And certainly the Broadshouldered Man's actions are well in line with what known serial killers did to try to subdue victims.