Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Sam Flynn]

Thinking this over, what's the 'background probability' of someone having their throat cut by a serial killer who not only favoured the cutting of throats but also was known to be at large in the area that night.?

The probabiliy approaches unity in the case of Eddowes, Gary - because she had her throat deeply cut, her abdomen opened, the viscera displaced and abdominal organs taken away, all of which happened in a handful of minutes.

So much for the "serial killer who favoured deep throat cutting followed by rapid disembowelment". We don't have this with Stride and, "interruption" theories notwithstanding, the fact remains that she was killed by someone who inflicted a single, comparatively simple, cut to her throat, and nothing else.

It is still eminently valid to consider the background probability of encountering a violent, possibly drunken, man in that area who happened to have on him a knife - before we leap to the conclusion that two "single events" are somehow beyond coincidence.

[Fisherman]

Gary asks:

"Could it be that in his account of this detail, Schwartz was trying to downplay the woman's distress in order to minimise the apprearance of his own cowardliness -even callousness- of not lingering at the scene?"

I don´t think so, Gary; I think he came clean at the time he gave his testimony to the police, only realizing afterwards what kind of role he had awarded himself.
And what happens in the Star interwiew? He suddenly puts a knife in Pipemans hand, and thus gives himself a good reason to run away. THAT is when I think he tried to polish on his smudged reputation.

Your suggestion of an old customer, well known to Stride, is not a bad one, although it has it´s drawbacks. Why was the newcomer not seen by Fanny Mortimer, coming or leaving? Did he surface the minute after Schwartz had run off, kill Stride in the next minute, allowing himself time to get away clean? It makes for a very pressed schedule, Gary! And IF he was an old customer, then his scam would have been to take Stride into the yard for paid-for-sex. And if so, what in the world did she take her cachous out for? She had already secured him as a customer, and if she was to perform oral sex on him and needed the cachous for that purpose, surely she would not take them out in advance?
The cachous, Gary, may well prove to be a very decisive clue to understanding the proceedings inside the yard. She would not have produced them in a situation were she felt threatened or was subjected to violence. She must have felt at ease as she did so.

All of this is why I put the jigsaw puzzle together the way I do: She knew BS man, he tried to drag her away but lost his grip on her, which is why she fell. She cried out in a lowered voice as it was never any true violence involved in his approach, just a failed attempt to drag her with him. They went into the yard together to secure privacy. She had the upper hand there, since he was repentful and wanted her to stay with him. She took her cachous out because she felt at ease and on top of things. It all went well until she told him that she wanted him out of her life. He pulls her of balance and cuts her, but panicks afterwards, realizing what he has done. In the darkness he cannot see the extents of his attack to the full. He may have fallen alongside her; the yard was muddy and slippery. He tries her right hand, palpating for a pulse, using his thumb on the wrist and setting off numerous dots with his fingers on the back of her hand, the way inexperienced people do - it should be the other way around, with the fingers on the inside of the wrist and the thumb on the back of the hand. He leaves.
About 1.30, in nearby Church Lane, a man is reported to have been spotted wiping his hands, sitting on a doorstep in Church Lane. It was said that he turned his face away as the witness looked at him.
The text of the Star in full:
"From two different sources we have the story that a man, when passing through Church Lane at about half past one, saw a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands. As everyone is on the lookout for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, where upon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat."

Short jacket and a sailors hat, Gary; does that sound familiar? The story has not always been given credit, much because it does not fit in with Eddowes´demise - there would not have been time enough to reach Mitre Square, sweet-talk Eddowes and get the job done.
But if we speculate that the man in Church Lane was not Eddowes´killer - but Strides! - then it all becomes another matter, does it not? And suddenly we don´t need to bring another man on the stage, we can explain why Fanny Mortimer saw nobody, we get an explanation to the lowered voice as Stride cried out, we realize why BS man tried to pull her into the street and - and! - we can explain them friggin´cachous.

No serial killer. Simple domestic violence. The second domestic brawl in London that night that ended with a man cutting his womans neck to the bone.

The best, Gary!
Fisherman

[Scotland Yard]

It is still eminently valid to consider the background probability of encountering a violent, possibly drunken, man in that area who happened to have on him a knife - before we leap to the conclusion that two "single events" are somehow beyond coincidence.

I agree that its most valid to consider the possibility and I'm certainly not saying that its beyond coincidence.

In some ways, I think, the situation with Stride's death resembles that of the Wallace murder case of 1931. Just about every piece of evidence will support entirely opposing views.

For my money though I just find it odd reasoning that insists that random coincidence is part and parcel of any given night in the East End of 1888 but then gives much less credence to random, anomalous and by their nature, 'coincidental' events that might have affected the outcome of a Ripper attack.

As I mentioned earlier, The Yorkshire Ripper's first two attacks proved non-fatal because of such random factors. A neighbour (as in that case) 'coincidentally' being in position to interrupt a murder can hardly be considered beyond coincidence either, can it?

Regards,
Gary

[Scotland Yard]

The cachous, Gary, may well prove to be a very decisive clue to understanding the proceedings inside the yard. She would not have produced them in a situation were she felt threatened or was subjected to violence. She must have felt at ease as she did so.

Agreed. All the more reason to believe it was not the BS man she went into the yard with. There's still any number of possibilities why she looked at this guy and didn't correlate him with JTR.

Short jacket and a sailors hat, Gary; does that sound familiar? The story has not always been given credit, much because it does not fit in with Eddowes´demise - there would not have been time enough to reach Mitre Square, sweet-talk Eddowes and get the job done.

But who was wearing a watch in these reports? All it takes is for an imprecision of ten/fifteen minutes and its not necessarily impossible (assuming that the reports are both reliable and the man in question was indeed Stride's murderer.) What is the distance between Chruch Lane and Mire Square? And even if the distance is too far to make it possible for the man in question to have walked in the time available, who's to say for sure he's connected to the Dutfield Yard murder anyway. Could just be coincidence.

Sauce for the goose, eh?

Regards
Gary

[Fisherman]

The time he would have to make the distance from Berner Street to Mitre Square and strike up a conversation with Eddowes would have been about five minutes if we are to believe in Lawendes sighting. That took place at about 1.35. And even if Jack was quick, I don´t see that he could have been THAT quick. Of course there is a moment of give and take here, but it could equally work in the other direction.

And no, the way I see things, the cachous is not a reason to look away from BS man as the killer - it is the exact opposite, as I showed in my former post.
With "your" guy on stage, why did she bring the cachous out at all?

And you still have to deal with our keen-eyed mrs Mortimer, Gary! How did "your" man enter and leave - and when?

The best!
Fisherman

[joelhall]

The cachous, Gary, may well prove to be a very decisive clue to understanding the proceedings inside the yard. She would not have produced them in a situation were she felt threatened or was subjected to violence. She must have felt at ease as she did so.

but.... she did and she was. someone tussled with her. someone sliced her neck open.

[Fisherman]

Yep, Joel, she did take her cachous out, and she had her neck cut - but what this suggests to me is that she did not see it coming. She did not expect to be attacked by whomever she spent time with, cachous in hand.

The best!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I just find it odd reasoning that insists that random coincidence is part and parcel of any given night in the East End of 1888

Hardly "random" if knife-wielding ruffians were comparatively commonplace on those mean streets. Liz was killed in what had been notorious as the "Tiger Bay" area, after all and, although the local rookery had been cleaned out, it was hardly the most salubrious part of an insalubrious East End.

Seen in that light, the reasoning is no "odder" than suggesting that two Catholics were beaten up, within an hour of one another and in the same neighbourhood, by two different Protestants in 1970s Belfast.

but then gives much less credence to random, anomalous and by their nature, 'coincidental' events that might have affected the outcome of a Ripper attack.

A good point, Gary - although we have to consider the likelihood of said random, anomalous events (e.g. the arrival of Diemschutz, the killer getting spooked by dark-adaptation, or a club member going for a pee in the yard - just at the point when "Jack" was about to do his worst) against the probability of the alternative scenario that Liz's killer simply "cut and run" full stop, and had no intention of "doing a Jack" on her at all. Her body's disposition, as well as that of her clothing and the nature of her neck wound seem in themselves to point to a different killer.

[Mitch Rowe]

Seen in that light, the reasoning is no "odder" than suggesting that two Catholics were beaten up, within an hour of one another and in the same neighbourhood, by two different Protestants in 1970s Belfast.

Liz was murdered. She was NOT a typical target for Murder. Well.. You say: "There are lots of Prostitute Murders." Not really. Compared to the number of Men these Women service a day and the amount of Prostitutes out there at any given day it should be more than usual.

[Sam Flynn]

Seen in that light, the reasoning is no "odder" than suggesting that two Catholics were beaten up, within an hour of one another and in the same neighbourhood, by two different Protestants in 1970s Belfast.

Liz was murdered. She was NOT a typical target for Murder. Well.. You say: "There are lots of Prostitute Murders."

I didn't say that, Mitch. I said we need to quantify the likelihood of a woman getting assaulted in that part of town and during that era. Without even trying to do so, we cannot hope to make a reasonable assessment of whether the Double Event was "beyond coincidence", although that hasn't stopped such claims being made, or such beliefs being held.

Note, also, that I say "woman" not "prostitute" and "assaulted" not "murdered". There's a fine dividing line between an assailant carrying a knife, and him actually using it in the heat of the moment. Focusing purely on "murder statistics" (incomplete as the data are) is not good enough.

Not really. Compared to the number of Men these Women service a day and the amount of Prostitutes out there at any given day it should be more than usual.

And we know that it wasn't? As I hinted at just now, the figures are incomplete, and all we have to go on are that subset of cases that made it into the newspapers, or those for whom a culprit was actually brought to court. Whatever the real baseline was, you can rest assured that it was higher than those cases which selected for publication in the pages of the Times, or those that were heard at the Old Bailey.

[Observer]

Hi Sam

alternative scenario that Liz's killer simply "cut and run" full stop, and had no intention of "doing a Jack" on her at all. Her body's disposition, as well as that of her clothing and the nature of her neck wound seem in themselves to point to a different killer.

I'm assuming that BSM is the Ripper here, and his intention was to kill and mutilate Liz Stride. Liz Stride might well have been about to enter the yard willingly with BSM that night, the close proximity of the yard to the attack as witnessed by Schwartz might well point to this.

Could BSM have spooked Liz Stride at the last moment, she then realising who her cleint was?

The sudden arrival of Schwartz, and Pipeman however puts paid to his intentions, and the killer, the Ripper, immediately makes a conscious descision to get out of there, but Stride has resisted him, the first victim to do this, he hates her for this, and decides to kill her for her resistance, before fleeing.

all the best

Observer

[harry]

Scotland Yard,
I was not reffering to mitre square.I was describing The Stride killing only,from the time shewas assaulted untill Diemschultz arrived.

Thanks Michael for your comments.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You are harping on BS being well known to Stride,but even that is not credible.Why attack immediately he gets to her?What motive would he have.I can agree that an attack of a domestic nature might erupt after a prolonged arguement,or even that Kidney would attack given some long time resentment,but if the latter I can't imagine her cosying up immediately afterwards.Sure there was domestic trouble reported over time,but that evening her hanging around the area and in company of various males,suggest to me she was not in fear of any harm that night,from anyone.,and if it did come,that a forgiving nature would be the last thing to expect from her.Not ,that is,for some considerable time.
Not my opinion here,but taken from experience.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"You are harping on BS being well known to Stride,but even that is not credible.Why attack immediately he gets to her?"

He did not, Harry - he started talking to her first, and then he tried to drag her out into the street. That does not involve any attack at all. After that, she may well have fallen as he lost his grip on her. Schwartz´interpretation was that he threw her to the ground, but a tie in a tug-of-war can be the simple solution to it all.
Therefore incident outside the gates may well have included no violence at all.
And I don´t think there was any cosying up. I think there was an argument inside the gates, in which Stride may well have had the initiative - until he killed her.

The best,
Fisherman

[Scotland Yard]

Harry - I was not reffering to mitre square.I was describing The Stride killing only,from the time shewas assaulted untill Diemschultz arrived.

My apologies. I addressed your actual point a little earlier.

Fisherman - And no, the way I see things, the cachous is not a reason to look away from BS man as the killer - it is the exact opposite, as I showed in my former post.
With "your" guy on stage, why did she bring the cachous out at all?

she did take her cachous out, and she had her neck cut - but what this suggests to me is that she did not see it coming. She did not expect to be attacked by whomever she spent time with, cachous in hand.

Its entirely possible that Stride produced the cachous as a matter of course with her clients whether the man who she went into the yard with was BS man or otherwise. She herself was missing plenty of teeth and who knows what state of dental hygiene existed amongst her clients. Halitosis must have been a prett common occupational hazard for streetwalkers - both their own and their clients. We cannot say for certain this wasn't standard procedure for her. And whether she anticipated the attack or not doesn't say anything one way or the other about the identity of her killer. She might have been just at ease with a stranger, an old customer or a lover.

And you still have to deal with our keen-eyed mrs Mortimer, Gary! How did "your" man enter and leave - and when?

The entire business witnessed by Schwartz could not have taken anything more than a couple of minutes at most - and that's being generous. Just add a few more minutes to account for Stride's murder and you have a window of time that Mortimer (who may have been keen-eyed but could hardly be considered reliable in her time estimations if the conflicting reports are to be taken at face value. She was neither precise nor consistant) could have missed completely.



Regards,
Gary