Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Observer.

It's all speculations and constructions that have no bearing whatsover. Where did you get the idea that Stride "took the chance to escape"?

No, I don't think Stride was killed efficiently in the "Ripper meaning" of the word. Although excessive enough to severe her windpipe, the throat cut was more insecure than in the other murders and not as deep on one side.
To me the behaviour of mr BS reminds me more of a drunken, violent brute rather than an efficient serial killer with a need to mutilate.
The Ripper may have had some disorganized traits, but he sure as hell wasn't THAT disorganized.
True, it is difficult to speculate about the intentions and behaviour of an unidentifed killer, but we have at least a behaviour pattern from at least three murders to give us an indication of how he operated. And although BS - if he was the killer - did get away with murder, he was hardly efficient or cautious.

Again - that is, of course, if BS really existed at all. The more I study all the other witness testimonies and the tight time frames I more and more seem to come to the conclusion that Schwartz's story may have been load of bollocks. If so, this whole discussion is purely intellectual.

All the best

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

That's absolute nonsense, Observer.
In the other murders we have a man who manages to escape unseen from the murder scenes and - most importantly - who carries out his murders and mutilations with very efficient speed and with a minimum of noise.

All the best

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.

all the best

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

See above post, also Chapman had nowhere to go her resistance was useless. Stride was out in the open, with every chance of escape, and it appears she took that chance. And are you saying Stride was not killed efficiently?

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Fish

You are falling in to the same trap as Glenn, nobody can get into the mindset of the Ripper. As I said it was evidently plain sailing with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, you, I, or anyone else for that matter can not predict what the Ripper would have behaved like should he have encountered resistance.

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, on the grounds that a rowdy obnoxious thug who was not worried about drawing attention to himself murdered her. This could have been the Ripper, I'm not saying it is, but to dismiss this individual for the reasons above is folly.

all the best

Observer



on the grounds that because the BSM was not concerned with drawing attention to himself

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Absolutely spot on. Liz Stride could have been the first of Jack the Rippers victims to show a bit of vim, a bit of resistance, the previous victims going to their deaths willingly, hence the lack of noise, the lack of evidence which would point to signs of a struggle. Whose to know what actions the Ripper would adopt should he find resistance from one of his victims.

That's absolute nonsense, Observer.
In the other murders we have a man who manages to escape unseen from the murder scenes and - most importantly - who carries out his murders and mutilations with very efficient speed and with a minimum of noise. Not to mention that Chapman very likely may have put up some kind of resistance but the murder was still quick, efficient and quite silent.

And you want to make me believe that this is the same man who wastes time and energy by throwing a woman losely on the pavement on the open street, dragging her out on the street in front of spectators, and calling out offensive remarks?
You're all mad!

Mr BS - if Schwartz didn't make the story up and this man ever existed in the first place - was most likely Stride's killer, but there is no way in Tipperary that he was Jack the Ripper.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Howard Brown writes:

"Personally,I don't think he cared"

...meaning that Hwoard does not think that the Ripper cared whether he was seen or not.

This is an interesting question! To some extent, saying that he would not 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 donŽt know. Longs and lawendes men may not have been the Ripper for all we know.

The fact that he stayed undetected is something that I mean urges us to accept the wiew that the Ripper took precautions to stay out of sight. We cannot be sure, but the only reasonable interpretation of the fact that he was never recognized MUST be that he most probably cared, Howard.

That said, we shoul of course not step into the ordinary victorian trap of believeing that he was some sort of phantom. He was not, as Simon Owen points out. And I think that itŽs reasonable to accept that he WAS seen, both on the way to the murder sites, and on his way from them. In all probability, though, he was able to make a totally harmless and unsuspicious impression on those who saw him. A pretty cool customer, thus, if my guess is correct, a guy who did not run away from the murder sites, but who instead walked at a normal pace, staying out of peoples way whenever he could, and not being intimidated when meetings in the streets could not be avoided.
Of course, a character like this, is NOT very lightly to behave the way BS man did. Such things were bound to evoke interest, and may even attract police to the venue, and I feel that he would avoid that if possible!

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Howard Brown]

Same here,Mike ( Perry Mason). Same team,too.

I understand fully the argument against assuming Stride was a Ripper victim based on several elements within the murder.

However, what IS the most significant element in the Stride murder is that unlike the preceding and following murders,there was a man seen within a few minutes of her murder assaulting her.

Let me just mention this, so as to not rehash any already masticated material.

Take the case of Jeff Dahmer. Every murder is conducted with the same sort of pattern: He picks up a guy in a bar; takes him home; kills him and eats him. With one exception.

That exception was when Dahmer went up to not one,but two policemen, and took his next victim from their grasp. He took him home and strangled him 10 minutes later.

Of course, Dahmer wrested the Laotian youth from the police in order to avoid having the police wait for an interpreter who could tell him about Dahmer's assault on him back at the shack.

Yet, who on earth would think that Dahmer would be so brazen, even in retrospect? That took extreme balls to do that even with a good reason to do it. Most of us would have packed our bags and split town.

Same as with the Stride murder,Mike...at least to me.

I really think we all buy the "elusive,stealthy,shadowy,phantom" murderer concept without considering that on one occasion....he let it all hang out.

Take care

HB

[Observer]

Hi Caz

No Glenn,

You have to show that rowdy and careless were not in Jack's vocabulary. And to do that you'd have to know a lot more about the man, including which of these relatively few crimes he actually committed and which he definitely did not. If he was BS and killed Liz, he was rowdy and careless on occasion. Ooh I don't know, maybe he was more under the influence than 'usual' because it was earlier in the night. Or am I barking mad to even think such a thing?

But you don't know either way without a fully functioning crystal ball.

And you won't find such a ball by aiming your comments about your fellow posters' sanity so far below the belt.



Love,

Caz
X

Absolutely spot on. Liz Stride could have been the first of Jack the Rippers victims to show a bit of vim, a bit of resistance, the previous victims going to their deaths willingly, hence the lack of noise, the lack of evidence which would point to signs of a struggle. Whose to know what actions the Ripper would adopt should he find resistance from one of his victims. It could well be he wasn't averse to slapping his victims about should they resist his advances, it could well be he was the BSM.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Caz!

This time over you write:

"in all probability you have no idea whatsoever whether Jack was determined, let alone able, to stick rigidly to this pattern, or behaved unpredictably and in accordance with the people and circumstances around him, and the laws of physics, just as every other human being in history has ever done"

...and that is correct, Caz! I have not got the faintest idea of how determined Jack was to stay with a pattern. Nor have you, or anyone else for that matter.
That is why I stick with what we actually HAVE, Caz - and we have a handful of murders displaying similar qualities, involving what may be interpreted as a preogression of violence.
The rest, involving your thesis that Jack would have adapted to the circumstances, rendering changes in that pattern, we DO NOT have. That is why I avoid it.

Summing it up, I use what we have got, Caz, and lucklily, that seems to support my wiew that Stride should be counted out.

You move with whatever unsubstantiated guess you can lay your hands on rendering YOU support of your wiew that it would have been Jack.

Really, Caz, were as well off as we could possibly hope for, the two of us! So donŽt feel sorry that you feel that you cannot help me. IŽll just sort off move with the evidence and the statistics, and I have a feeling that I will do well enough with that.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[Simon Owen]

Lets dismiss the more obvious line of questioning before we pre-suppose we are dealing with the Phantom again.

Best regards HB.

I assume this is meant metaphorically , but calling Jack ' the Phantom ' is unwittingly ascribing to him supernatural powers and abilities which he simply did not have.

He was an ordinary man. He could make mistakes !

[Simon Owen]

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.

I think this is known as ' playing the man ' rather than the ball !

Of course BS man could have been the Ripper and of course Liz Stride could have been a victim of the Ripper as well.

We have no idea of the exact circumstances of that night , and therefore we cannot make statements of this kind : we can only postulate what happened. For the inclusion of Liz in the list of Jack's victims , we have to speculate that different circumstances applied in the case of her murder , but these circumstances are no means procluded by what we know of the events of the night of the ' double event '.

As I have said elsewhere , I believe the Eddowes murder came about because Jack botched this killing up , and he had to go and get his ' fix ' if you like. He went to the City because he feared the Met police would be on alert , and thus he feared capture. He then brought a piece of apron back into the East End with him to show that he , the East End killer , was responsible for the City murder as well. Simple and elegant.

Howard,

Another opinion I respect, and someone I hope its fine to call friend,......but in the case of BSM plausibly being Jack the Ripper, we are missing far to many indicators that are elements within all four other killings, to a greater or lesser degree, to assign the killing to the man they referred to as "Jack"..which in actuality is a man or men supposed to be involved in the killings of 5 unfortunates during the Fall of 1888 in or about Whitechapel.

Speaking frankly,...."Jack" is just about all the evidence they had to assign any of those killings to anyone. The most reasonable approach to unsolved murder investigation seems to be...when starting without a suspect, ...reviewing all known evidence, determining the nature of the crimes and looking to see if any are similar.

Polly is a natural pre-cursor to Annie, who is a natural pre-cursor to Kate. One or two new tricks, but the abdomen and abdominal organs were the centre of those three killings.

Liz is an anomaly with a witnessed interaction with someone drunk and agressive just before she dies. And Mary has at least one lover known for temper and who someday will reside in custody permanently under sedation.

Lets dismiss the more obvious line of questioning before we pre-suppose we are dealing with the Phantom again.

Best regards HB.

Hello again,

My friend Glenn was spot on with his post, and to argue an unseen, not heard, not witnessed, supposed serial killing suspect appearing within the 5 minutes he has when the gate or yard could even be accessed without being seen by anyone, in favour of a witnessed drunk acosting the woman causing her to fall and cry out, followed by the drunkards taunts to the witness, less than 15 minutes before a single cut severs one artery while she is on the ground, likely 5 or ten yards away, or while falling....isnt all there argument wise.

Caz, when you have a similar "crime spree" killer, under similar environmental conditions, in the midst of other non-related similar killings,....Im all ears. Apples to apples.. your case was not.

I suppose I could cite any historical fact about any crime and suggest it is similar to the one in question, but that wouldnt be accuracy...that would be opinion.

Tom....some things change...seasons, golf swings, angles of approach....but you cant change historical data as far as I know....without new evidence to do so. And on paper, the only plausible, probable and with prior malice shown suspect we have last seen with Liz is the man with those Broadshoulders. I could care less which doctor or police official thought it was Jack...have you ever heard one of them make a case for him that didnt involve an alledged interruption?....one almost summarily dismissed by properly alligning Dr Blackwells TOD estimate.

Wecome back though....nice to see ya.

Imperically, no-one intimately involved with the cases offered any plausible story for the killer being Jack. There are snippets tied in a string....deepish cut, but only severed one side completely...hmm....may have "been cut while falling"?,... since when is that a trait we look for by Jack,...a man assaults her at approx 12:45, witnessed by two men, then leaves abruptly with the tip of his hat so Jack can enter?...if he wanted her, why would he go now that he has her alone, and likely in the yard...which was empty.

Its easy to type Jack killed Liz...its impossible to see any sane, logical, supported argument for that at this point in time.

Maybe a Judy Gustafsdotter will come forward some day and tell everyone that her family has proof Jack killed her....but dont submerge and restrict breathing though.

My best regards all.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Glenn:

I could be locked up in The Hatch for lesser offenses with Aaron The K...but its not out of order to consider it a strong possibility that B.S. Man was Stride's killer and Jack The Ripper...because its not out of the realm of possibility that Jack The Ripper didn't care if he was seen or not. We seem to have this mindset in the field that he did care and there's no other way of approaching him based on how other serial killers employ stealth and certain methods of elusivity.

If he's the man Mrs.Long saw with Chapman, then he didn't care too much if he was seen by her. He's in the backyard in the process of murdering Chapman with Cadosch 10 feet or less away. He didn't care too much about that either.

If he's the man...not necessarily with all the trappings Hutchinson described him wearing... or even with 'em...with Kelly...he didn't care if he was seen either.

Ditto the Lawende sighting...and killing Eddowes in a spot which afforded no protection other than the audible cognizance of someone approaching...

Dave Yost has an excellent book on Stride out now...which is entitled, "Elizabeth Stride and Jack The Ripper "( MacFarland Publishers). He makes the case for Stride not being a Ripper victim and does so in an excellent fashion. However, it dawned on me that B.S.Man's behavior may tie in with the less than stealthy reactions to the sightings by the aforementioned Long,Cadosch( audibly),Lawende,and the mnomenical phenomenon Hutch...and that in the final analysis, the Ripper simply didn't care that much if he was seen doing whatever thing he intended to do on the nights in question.

That he came prepared for some interloper or nosey Parker ( as in possessing another weapon if necessary ) is another thing to consider. It might explain the Coram Knife...and of course, it might not.

We ought to contemplate about why he didn't seem to care about these sightings and backyard noises...at least the Eddowes and Chapman murders......and consider that in the instance of the Stride murder, he lost his rag,as the Brits say. He wasn't seen killing Stride,which is one thing that murder has in common with the other two victims...but he was seen assaulting her, which might be the only big difference between the three outdoor murders other than Stride's unmutilated person due to interruption.

Personally,I don't think he cared,Glenn. I think...that Stride told her killer that she would go in the Yard with him and that at the last second, she got cold feet. Thats why he lost his rag. Just an opinion.

Later,gator...

[caz]

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.

No Glenn,

You have to show that rowdy and careless were not in Jack's vocabulary. And to do that you'd have to know a lot more about the man, including which of these relatively few crimes he actually committed and which he definitely did not. If he was BS and killed Liz, he was rowdy and careless on occasion. Ooh I don't know, maybe he was more under the influence than 'usual' because it was earlier in the night. Or am I barking mad to even think such a thing?

But you don't know either way without a fully functioning crystal ball.

And you won't find such a ball by aiming your comments about your fellow posters' sanity so far below the belt.

Love,

Caz
X