Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[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.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

He left no clues that the police could detect. It doesn't necessarily mean that he left no clues. If police science & the forensics of 1888 were at the level as they are 120 years later in 2008, we'd be discussing the fingerprints he left at the scene at Millers Court, maybe on the fence at Hanbury Street and so forth.

Now, that I most certainly agree with.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The Ripper would have had time to mutilate Liz , but I believe he feared getting caught in the act , so he didn't.

That's nonsense. He certainly didn't worry about that in Buck's Row (where he most certainly was close to capture) or Mitre Square (regularly patrolled every 15 minutes by a PC).

No one has said that the Ripper was a superhuman. But fact remains that he managed to perform a number of murders, mutilate their bodies and escape from the scene unseen in the short time frame between the police beats - which in turn tells us something about his approach, personality and efficiency. It was most definitely not the type of person similar to the rowdy, careless and clumsy Broadshoulders.

As for the rather irrelevant and misleading terms 'organized' and 'disorganized', it is quite likely that he was a mixture between the two, as has been suggested by for example John Douglas (which is why the terms pretty much cancel each other out and becomes useless).
His ability to escape and to not leave the murder weapon on the scene is undoubtedly what is often referred to as 'organized' traits but he may also display traits of the opposite. So take your pick.

All the best

[Simon Owen]

For some folks, the Ripper had to be engaged in a "pattern" of behavior and therefore a murder that might fall outside the "pattern" ( Stride/Tabram) doesn't fit according to our preconcieved notions of what that pattern was.

Yes , this is what I feel. We must be careful not to assume the Ripper was some sort of superhuman evil genius because he was not caught.

If Liz's killer was the Ripper , I feel sure that it was not Jack's intention to murder her in Dutfield's Yard : he wanted to get her to go with him somewhere quieter with less likelyhood of being caught. For some reason this did not happen. He killed Liz quickly and then he went away to find another more pliant victim who he could mutilate - hence the ' Double Event '.

The Ripper would have had time to mutilate Liz , but I believe he feared getting caught in the act , so he didn't. I believe the fact that the Eddowes murder ( which I think we can safely attribute to Jack ) was in the City and not the East End is a more important discrepancy to explain , above the possible discrepancies surrounding Liz's death.

[Howard Brown]

This is an interesting question! have cared, points in the direction of a disorganized killer. I do not think that he was, though. He left no clues at the murder sites, and he appeared and disappeared without anybody recognizing him for what he was. Perhaps he was not even seen at the murder sites at all, we simply donīt know. Longs and Lawendes men may not have been the Ripper for all we know.--Fisherman
____________________________

This also bring up another issue within these murder scenes...that of "left clues".

He left no clues that the police could detect. It doesn't necessarily mean that he left no clues. If police science & the forensics of 1888 were at the level as they are 120 years later in 2008, we'd be discussing the fingerprints he left at the scene at Millers Court, maybe on the fence at Hanbury Street and so forth. These murders weren't committed with finesse,obviously,although there are one or two elements in one or two murders some feel display a modicum of finesse. I'm sure you are well aware that they would almost have to catch him in the act without something identifiable to prosecute him.

For the sake of arguing a theory,Fisherman, I am assuming that Mrs.Long did see Chapman's killer and so did Lawende...and yes,its possible that I am incorrect.

Yet I still feel its worth keeping in mind that we're possibly dealing with someone who is a little outside of the normal "stealth and slither" set. For all we know, he may have walked up to Goulston Street after the Eddowes Murder and not scurried away like some guy whose pants are on fire.

For some folks, the Ripper had to be engaged in a "pattern" of behavior and therefore a murder that might fall outside the "pattern" ( Stride/Tabram) doesn't fit according to our preconcieved notions of what that pattern was.

The Hillside Stranglers,as an example, used a telephone to procure at least one victim and also physical force to swipe one woman off the street. Yet,the end result was the same.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

As I said it was evidently plain sailing with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes

Hi Observer,

How do you know it was 'plain sailing' with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes?
Were you there?

I am also wondering: how do you come to the conclusion that the Ripper would 'stay and fight' and do so in front of people on an open street (with even more witnesses than just the victim to worry about) if the victim resisted, and not just simply take of instead beofre too many people saw him - or worse - managed to get hold of him?

All the best

[Fisherman]

Observer writes:

"Just because the evidence points to a carefull studious Ripper prior to the Stride murder, it does not follow that Stride is not a victim"

No it does not. The only thing that follows is that the most reasonable and logical and statistically grounded wiew is that she wasnīt. No more than that.

The best, Observer!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Only because the victims offered no resistance, and by the time Chapman realised who her punter was it was too late, she had nowhere to run to.

Again, total speculation.

All the best