Liz Stride: The Newest of Theories

[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

[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

[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

[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 !!

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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...

[perrymason]

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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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 !

[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 donīt feel sorry that you feel that you cannot help me. Iīll 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

[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