Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[caz]

.... I was thinking dead or prison.

Good to have you back, Tom !!

And I was thinking temporary suspension for three months for some gay comment or other.

But that was just a guess.

Good to see you back fighting for some common sense on Stride, Tom!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So, Caz, a non-evisceration murder of a woman who has been killed by the most common weapon avaliable in a society, and who is left in a position that bears no resemblances to those who have fallen prey to an eviscerator who has stayed true to "his" pattern throughout his spree, is something that deviates from that pattern to such a dramatic extent that one really must realize that it is in all probability the work of another killer.

Fisherman,

You could not have wandered further astray than where you are right now. It's entirely circular to argue that a killer has 'stayed true to "his" pattern' by eliminating every murder that doesn't fit your idea of "his" pattern and including only those that do fit your idea of "his" pattern. If you really can't see what you have just done here, I cannot help you. There is no 'must realise' about this, and 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.

Love,

Caz
X

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

...which assumes for no good reason that Broad-Shoulders man couldn't be the Ripper (his actions seem perfectly compatible with those of known serial killers)

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.

[Jon Guy]

Is that really you Tom? I heard that a guy had been cut in the throat in downtown Phoenix, and came up with the safe bet that the Ripper had finally caught up with you.

The best, Tom. And welcome back - it has not been the same out here without you...

.... I was thinking dead or prison.

Good to have you back, Tom !!

[Fisherman]

Is that really you Tom? I heard that a guy had been cut in the throat in downtown Phoenix, and came up with the safe bet that the Ripper had finally caught up with you.

The best, Tom. And welcome back - it has not been the same out here without you...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz!

Do you remember Vesna Vulovic? She was an air hostess who, somewhere in the eighties, survided a flight disaster. I do not remember the exact details, but I know that she fell from a couple of thousand metres to the ground, landins in a tree canopy that hindered the fall, and subsequently hitting the ground - alive!
The story was all over the newspapers.

My point in these discussions, Caz, is that though good old Vesna survived, and though it can be argued that it goes to prove that you can fall out of an airplane at X thousand metres and still survive - it DOES NOT go to prove that it is as expected an outcome as it would have been to turn into mincemeat on impact.

We have serialists who employ different killing methods at differing strikes - but it is not something that should be expected! It is a deviating and uncommon behaviour. Seerial killers who like to strangle, usually keep to strangling, those who cut usually keep cutting and those who prefer to bang their victims over the head with a hammer, normally bang their victims over the head with a hammer. That, in itīs turn, leaves us with the useful insight that we may more often than not expect to find different reoccuring patterns when we are dealing with serial killers. And - and this is a crucial, crucial point - if we are dealing with a man who is unidentified, and who furthermore has evinced a very clear pattern in the killings we have on record, then the only thing we have to go by is that pattern. Therefore it MUST be used when we try do tell different slayings from each other. Any cautious investigator would of course be aware that changes may occur in the pattern, but that ought not to be his main line of investigation.
So, Caz, a non-evisceration murder of a woman who has been killed by the most common weapon avaliable in a society, and who is left in a position that bears no resemblances to those who have fallen prey to an eviscerator who has stayed true to "his" pattern throughout his spree, is something that deviates from that pattern to such a dramatic extent that one really must realize that it is in all probability the work of another killer.

Putting it otherwise, Caz: long as you have every right to promote the "could have" possibility, I much prefer to stay on the "would have" team.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fisherman,

You can take it that I was talking generally, and not specifically about your own position, once I finished responding directly to the part of your post that I quoted. It should be obvious if I go on to misquote or misrepresent you because I would have to claim that you had said this or you had argued that, when anyone can look back to see if you had done any such thing. When I make an observation it doesn't mean that you or anyone else must have been arguing the opposite unless I specifically say so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

It's like I never went away.

Is is probable that Jack the Ripper would cut only the throat, and once?

Sure, why not?

Is it probable that the Ripper would attract attention to himself by scuffling, then shouting, while in the company of his victim, who is killed within the next few minutes?

Yes, according to Albert Cadosch in Hanbury Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Is is probable that Jack the Ripper would cut only the throat, and once?

Is it probable that the Ripper would attract attention to himself by scuffling, then shouting, while in the company of his victim, who is killed within the next few minutes?

Hi Perry,

You may as well ask if it's probable that Peter Kurten would strangle a victim until she was on the point of passing out and then decide, for no apparent reason, to let her go, even though she was helpless and they were so deep into the woods that she could have screamed blue murder because there was nobody to hear.

It was more than probable in his case. It happened and it was how he was caught. He even showed his victim the way out of the woods!

He had also appeared as if from nowhere, to rescue the girl from another sexual predator.

Pardon me for using the historical record to bust the odd myth about serial killer behaviour.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

BS is by far the most likely killer of Liz Stride, ripper or not, if Israel Schwartz told the truth and wasn't wildly awry in his estimation of the time.

I dare someone to disagree with that. Please someone disagree with that for the record. I'd be fascinated,

Why posit the existence of another attacker if the evidence says we've already got one? If the cachous is a "fly in the ointment" to BS being the killer, why is it any less of a fly in the ointment for the "Jack arrived minutes later" theory. It just concerns me that any witnessed behaviour that even remotely hints at peaked-cap local ruffianary is apt to be rejected on spurious grounds as not Jackish enough, and here is a case in point.

Hi Ben,

I hope you are not including me. I certainly don't reject BS as not Jackish enough. All I am doing is observing that BS doesn't have to be Jack, and BS doesn't have to be Liz's killer either. See the 'previous assaults' thread for proof that lightning can indeed strike the same victim twice if you still think it's too unlikely that Jack could have taken over where BS left off.

Will catch up with subsequent posts to yours asap.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi all,

I agree with Bens post, it is virtually impossible to make a better case, based on Schwartz and other known data, that BSM is most likely Liz's killer. If you still want Jack for this, as people like Caz does whenever a dubious inclusion is discussed, then you better accept BSM as Jack.

A probability that is dubious in and of itself.

Either Pipeman, or BSM, was located according to some press, before Oct 1st papers, and since Pipeman is only reffered to as having something like reddish whiskers in the article, it would seem probable that they found BSM.

Do we have any reason to suspect that Jack ever behaved as BSM did, something which may have led to his being located? Of course not. Do we have any evidence that BSM left before Liz was cut? Of course not. Do we have any evidence that suggests anyone was seen at or near that gates from 12:46 until 1am....other than Goldstein?...no. Do we have any evidence that anyone was in that yard just before the murder? No. Do we have evidence that suggests that the killer was in mid-mutilation, or even preparing to mutilate? No. Has Jack ever communicated directly with a witness prior to murdering? No. Does a single wound on Liz Stride qualify her as an obvious candidate for a Ripper victim? No. Is any other victim found lying on her side? No.

Are there plenty of other murdered women in 1888/9, killed with a knife, that were not believed to be the Rippers victims? Yes. Does that mean the Ripper and other knife killers of women in the East End were operating in the same period, and places, as Jack? Yes. Does this eliminate any argument that insists Jack was unique in the fact that he killed street whores during 1888/9? Yes.

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:
"Jack apparently didn’t give two hoots about whether he was seen or not before his handiwork "

Apparently, Caz? Do we KNOW that Longīs man was Jack? That Lawendes man was? BS man?
Nope, Caz, we donīt. But we DO know that after a number of strikes, killing a handful of prostitutes, we have no certain sightings of the guy. To me, that does not spell that he apparently could not care less. Just as he would have taken care getting out of them venues, there is every reason to believe that he would avoid advertising arriving in them too loudly in the same manner.

"Coincidence? What coincidence?"

The coincidence that Jack should have stumbled on Stride being harassed at that exact moment, in that exact spot, Caz. Just like Ben argues in his post, BS man is of course by far the most probable killer, and to try and sweep away the argument that Jackīs sudden appearance on that stage would have been highly coincidental is to violate logic.

"Again, people want it both ways. They try to claim, with insufficient evidence, that it was an everyday event in the 1880s for men to go round the East End streets slitting women’s throats with sharp knives, to make it sound more convincing that someone other than Jack did this to Liz."

If you mean me specifically, Caz, feel free to spell it out. And if you do, I will of course tell you that you are grossly exaggerating my stance, since murder never was an everyday event. Murder is rare, thank God, and slitting throats is even rarer. But you do not have to do all that much reading up to recognize that when it came to armed murder in 1888, knives were by far the most common weapon, and when it came to using them, slitting peopleīs throats was a method that was used at numerous occasions. It was never something the Ripper was the only man to employ.

Moreover, in a situation where that very method of killing is advertised all over the papers of East End and London, the chances of somebody else than the Ripper employng it of course rise. MacKenzie and Coles found out about that soon enough, according to what most researchers speculate.

So the evidence is there, Caz, and you are as free as I am to use it. But please donīt misquote me, exaggerate what I am saying or put words in my mouth. It does not serve any honest cause.

As for the rest of your post, you will find that I have already stated that I also believe that speaking about grave violence in connection with BS mans "attack" on Stride is probably misleading, just as I have never argued that he (B S man) can not be Jack. He can, of course - but more speaks against it than in favour of it, I think.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I sort of toy with the idea of BS being JTR and a Club member. Suppose he was setting up a liaison for later with Stride, but she needed money for the drink now and he couldn't get rid of her. Imagine, Stride harrassing JTR. All he wants to do is set up his kill for later and go to the club, but she wants to wait outside or keeps bugging him. He throws her down, but she won't leave. She suggests something about his character. He thinks she's onto something. He kills here in fear and anger, and now 'e's all edgy like. Eddowes is the direct result of his edginess. Just a thought.

Mike

...which assumes for no good reason that Broad-Shoulders man couldn't be the Ripper (his actions seem perfectly compatible with those of known serial killers) and also that Israel Schwartz's testimony is trustworthy in the first place.

I would agree on Schwartz Dan, but whether BSM is compatible with known serial killers, or whether he is compatible with what we believe the style and MO of the Whitechapel Murderer was, based on Polly then Annie, is another thing.

BSM is supposedly seen entering the scene weaving as he walks, he acosts a soon to be victim in front of witnesses supposedly, and he shouts at or to someone. I would think at the very least, quiet entrances and exits and discreet conversations were more his known "style" to that point.

cd......There is always a possibility that Broadshouldered Man left before Liz was cut, and Jack the Ripper, either waiting, or arriving, stepped in to kill her. Certainly its either BSM or Jack, or BSM as Jack....hardly conceivable we need to consider some other unseen, unknown man at this point.

So your idea is within the realm of possibility. But what of probability? What of known evidence that would support your idea?,...We know both Lave and Eagle said the yard was empty at approx 12:40...so your window is 5 minutes if Schwartz was accurate. Could he enter in 5 minutes, hide, then kill? Sure...its possible. Is it probable, based on the fact that from 12:45 to 12:46 Liz is still with BSM, the man who acosts her, outside the gates, and he is not seen leaving at all, but no-one is seen in front of the gates to the yard anymore, as per Fanny?

Is is probable that Jack the Ripper would cut only the throat, and once?

Is it probable that the Ripper would attract attention to himself by scuffling, then shouting, while in the company of his victim, who is killed within the next few minutes?

Is it probable that BSM would leave quietly if innocent of any further actions,... or rather more like he entered? Why is that not seen or heard?

Is it probable, that a woman seen acosted by a man a few minutes before being found dead a few yards away;

a) Had someone she could have called to help in the yard, but didnt?
b) Would have encountered a new unknown and unseen person from 12:46 until she is cut, when we do not know that her assailant has left her company yet?
c) Was killed by a man who is known primarily for his postmortem mutilations, despite having none?
d) Was likely a victim of escalated violence due to the assailants intoxication and anger, and was taken inside the yard where its dark and killed while still fueding with the man?

I think d) is probable. I know you hesitate to stray far from the Canonical guidelines pal, but factor it all....the statements, the witness accounts, the single cut, BSM, no other people seen in the vicinity after 12:46.....
We have a victim of what today might be described as a solicitation disagreement with a drunk and apparently aggressive man, and the woman is lying dead alone in a yard within 14 minutes.

Anyone could have showed up....you dont have to suggest Jack only...its whether there is any evidence to suggest that Liz was in any other company than BSM's when she was cut. And there is not.

My best regards cd, Dan.

[Ben]

BS is by far the most likely killer of Liz Stride, ripper or not, if Israel Schwartz told the truth and wasn't wildly awry in his estimation of the time.

I dare someone to disagree with that. Please someone disagree with that for the record. I'd be fascinated,

Why posit the existence of another attacker if the evidence says we've already got one? If the cachous is a "fly in the ointment" to BS being the killer, why is it any less of a fly in the ointment for the "Jack arrived minutes later" theory. It just concerns me that any witnessed behaviour that even remotely hints at peaked-cap local ruffianary is apt to be rejected on spurious grounds as not Jackish enough, and here is a case in point.