Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[Scotland Yard]

What "double standard"? The background probability of knife assaults in the East End would apply whether or not we were talking about the "Double Event" - as a general statistic, the establishment would help us to quantify the "randomness" or otherwise of any event.

The "interruption" theory requires that we accept some entirely random happening, or at least one of an arbitrary range of possible interventions, in order to explain the absence of any abdominal mutilation (or any apparent preparation for such mutilation) in the specific case of Stride.

The thinking between those two arguments is rather different, as are the intended outcomes - one is looking for a general baseline, the other is looking for excuses in respect of a single event.

I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify this for me because currently I'm finding your 'background probability' argument to be hopelessly biased.

You're saying that establishing as a general statistic the background probability of knife assaults in the East End would help us to quanitfy the "randomness" or otherwise of a similar event. Fair enough. This I have no argument with.

But it seems to me that you're also saying that you see no validity whatsoever in producing a similar statistic, a 'background probabilty' of any event that may have occured in or around Dutfield's Yard that could have changed the outcome of a Ripper attack?

Such events could be anything that occured in or around the Yard between the departure of Schwartz and up to, but not necessarily including, the arrival of Diemschutz.

For example:

1)Any sound to came from inside the club door or elsewhere that may have alarmed the killer between about 12:45 and 1:00. In other words what's the background probablity of their being any potentially startling sounds in or around Dutfield's Yard at that time of night.
2)Any light going on in any window of any of the houses at the bottom end of the yard that may have alarmed the killer in the same period. What's the background probablity of there being one or more lights switched on or off in or around Dutfield's Yard?
3)Any unrecorded person that may have passed outside the yard and that may have alarmed the killer. What's the background probability of people walking past the Yard at that time of night? If we count only Schwartz and Diemshutz I'd say it was extremely high, wouldn't you?
4)Any unrecorded calls or screams made by Elizabeth Stride herself before he killed her that may have put him in fear of capture.

What's the background probability of any event or combination of events that may have occurred in that Yard that may have prevented the mutilations.

Your dismissal of these possible factors as 'excuses' is completely unwarranted.

I think that its perfectly reasonable to conclude that while the background probability of a 'random and unrelated' throat-slitting a ten minute walk (and less than an hour away) from a Ripper attack might be very high.

But similarly the background probability of any number of 'random and unrelated' events in or around the Yard that could have sent the Ripper scurrying away is also very high.

You can't uses statistics to weigh in favour of an unconnected killing because that knife cuts both ways, Sam.

Your general thesis seems to be 'No mutilations - no Ripper'. But another factor overlooked here is that Diemschutz himself stated that he believed the killer was still in the yard when he had entered, due to the warm temperature of the body and the continuingly odd behavior of his pony.To me this indicates he arrived within minutes of the murder. Who's to say it wasn't seconds and why do you dismiss this possibility so readily?

You say that the interruption scenario requires that we believe 'any one of an arbitrary range of possible interventions,' and I say that the background probability of any one of an arbititary range of interventions is extremely high. Once again, why dismiss them as a possibility so readily?

Regards,
Gary

[Sam Flynn]

You might as well argue that Mary Kelly is not a JTR victim because the degree of mutilations and the location clearly differs greatly from the killer's previous efforts.

Some argue that way, although I'm not convinced. At least in the case of Kelly, there is very little doubt that the killer went further than severing a carotid artery. With Stride, we don't get beyond a cut throat - just like many other murders of that nature since time immemorial.

[Sam Flynn]

As I said earlier, she might have been just at ease with a stranger, an old customer or a lover.

Indeed, Gary - and the fact that Stride had once lived a short distance away from Berner Street, and for a considerable time, adds weight to the possibility that she was picking up with an old flame.

[Sam Flynn]

This touches on the crux of what I see as a strange double standard in the 'coincidental throat cut' argument

What "double standard"? The background probability of knife assaults in the East End would apply whether or not we were talking about the "Double Event" - as a general statistic, the establishment would help us to quantify the "randomness" or otherwise of any event.

The "interruption" theory requires that we accept some entirely random happening, or at least one of an arbitrary range of possible interventions, in order to explain the absence of any abdominal mutilation (or any apparent preparation for such mutilation) in the specific case of Stride.

The thinking between those two arguments is rather different, as are the intended outcomes - one is looking for a general baseline, the other is looking for excuses in respect of a single event.

[Scotland Yard]

Hello Gary,We cannot even say for certain that she was soliciting on the night of her death.

As I said earlier, she might have been just at ease with a stranger, an old customer or a lover.

[Scotland Yard]

Sam Flynn - 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

This touches on the crux of what I see as a strange double standard in the 'coincidental throat cut' argument.

Why is it easier or more attractive to argue that there was a coincidental throat cut a short walk away from the Eddowes murder than it is to argue for a coincidental interruption? And why not consider the possibility that the Ripper didn't mutilate Stride because that simply wasn't his intention? Because for whatever reason, he felt the conditions didn't favour him to linger and carry out a more extensive attack. For whatever reason, he just killed her because he could, out of sheer malice perhaps.

The notion that a serial killer is somehow completely predictable in his actions and always waits until conditions are perfect for him to murder -as evidenced by the Yorkshire Ripper case - is clearly and demonstrably unsound.

You cannot say that the Ripper would never kill without mutilating in the same way its invalid to say that he could not have been interrupted or scared off at (yes, precisely) the time he was about to carry out his mutilating on poor Stride.

You might as well argue that Mary Kelly is not a JTR victim because the degree of mutilations and the location clearly differs greatly from the killer's previous efforts.

Regards
Gary

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Gary,

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.

We cannot even say for certain that she was soliciting on the night of her death.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.